Welcome to destall.com on July 5 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFARB)
Jump to: navigation, search
Dispute resolution (⇛)
Negotiation
Article talk pages
Editor assistance (⇒)
Third opinion (⇒)
Request comments (⇒)
Wikiquette alerts (⇒)
Mediation
Mediation Cabal
Mediation Committee
Request mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee
Request arbitration
Remedies
Editing restrictions
General sanctions
Wikipedia arbitration
About arbitration
Request arbitration
Guide to arbitration
Arbitration policy
Arbitration Committee
About the Committee
Agenda & announcements
Rules & procedures
History of the Committee
About the Clerks
Records
Active sanctions
Index of proceedings
Shortcuts:
WP:RFAR
WP:RFARB
WP:ArbReq
WP:A/R

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution 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.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:
Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification of an existing case
Request an amendment to an existing case
(This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed)
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case

Contents
           Arbitration Cases
changes • purge • v • d • e 
Case   Pages Date Drafter Clerk Target date
Evidence and Workshop
none
Voting
ADHD (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 5 Jul 2009 SBa Ea 17 Jul 2009
Motion to close or dismiss
none
Recently closed (see all)
Mattisse (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 1 July 2009 NYB Tip
A Man In Black (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 1 July 2009 WZ AGK
Seeyou (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 26 Jun 2009 NYB&WZ MD
Obama articles (•/ t) (e/ t) (w/ t) (p/ t) 21 Jun 2009 WZ MD&RP
Clarification and Amendment Requests
Case   Link Date      
Requests for Clarification
Macedonia 2 (link) 26 Jun 2009
Obama articles (link) 26 Jun 2009
Macedonia 2 (link) 22 Jun 2009
Ireland article names (link) 20 Jun 2009
West Bank - Judea and Samaria (link) 19 Jun 2009
Requests for Amendment
Date delinking (4) (link) 21 Jun 2009
Everyking desysopping (link) 17 Jun 2009
Date delinking (3) (link) 17 Jun 2009
Date delinking (2) (link) 17 Jun 2009



Requests for arbitration

Use this section to present a request for a new arbitration case.

Before requesting arbitration, you should read and familiarize yourself with the Arbitration guide, which covers when cases will be accepted, presenting a case, and what to expect. Then, read the following instructions:

To make a request, please follow these steps:

  1. Edit the arbitration request section, copy-paste the following template:
    {{subst:arbreq}}
    below the first header and click save/submit.
  2. Edit the arbitration request section again to fill in the names of the involved parties, and provide links to any prior attempts to resolve the dispute (such as formal or informal mediation or talk page discussion).
  3. State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail.
  4. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person whom you identify as a party in the request. To do this, you can simply add the following template:
    {{subst:arbcom notice|section name}}
    to the respective talk pages, replacing "section name" with the title given to your Arbitration request. Once you have done this, post diffs of the notification to the Confirmation section of your request.

This is not a page for discussion.

  • Reply to another person's comment in your section. See the relevant section of the arbitration guide.
  • It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
  • Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Please do not open cases yourself; only an Arbitrator or Clerk may do so.
  • Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee (details).
  • Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.
  • After a request is made, the active Arbitrators vote on whether to accept or decline the case; 0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.

<Correct English spelling of the city (currently) "Kosovska Mitrovica" and propose to move it to "Mitrovica">

Initiated by Interestedinfairness (talk) at 10:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by {Party 1}

There has been repeated discussion regarding the correct, and most widely recognized English spelling of the name for the city (currently spelled "Kosovska Mitrovica"). Certain users who were apposed to the renaming the article to "Mitrovica", have since come round to the idea. There remains however, no consensus or will, amongst administrators present in the discussion to take the initiative and rename the article. In fact, even the editors who acknowledge the correct English spelling of the city, have left the page without participating further in discussion after the consensus was reached here. I do not posses the know-how to change the name of the article and the direct, re-directs. Nevertheless, I think this is the correct route to take before any unilaterally actions.

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

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

Use of "disputed territories", "occupied territories" and related terminology in the context of the Arab-Israeli dispute

Initiated by Peter cohen (talk) at 12:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Peter cohen

There is a roving content dispute on the use of terminology regarding the Israeli-occupied territories. I have identified 20 threads spread over ten article talk pages where this or related terminology has been disputed this year. There are many older discussions too. (This search contains a high proportion of valid hits.)

I have previously started a thread at WP:IPCOLL to initiate a central discussion on the terminology but the level of participation there has been less than in several of the threads elsewhere. Although there is no currently unaddressed conduct issue in this area, the history of problematic behaviour over similar terminology is such that it is highly likely that things will reach a level where Arbcom intervention will be necessary at some point in the future. Further the related RfC at Talk:Golan Heights generated various accusations and suggestions of misconduct. I am therefore requesting that Arbcom take pre-emptive action and mandate that a centralised solution be created to the content issue along the lines of those being reached regarding the naming of Ireland articles and the use of "Judea and Samaria" etc.

Discussion pages where the "disputed" v "occupied" or related terminology has been discussed this year include:

discussion first post last post duration
Talk:Golan_Heights#Pro-israeli.21_BIASED_article.21_Non_neutral 2009-01-01 19:38 2009-01-24 22:56
Talk:Status_of_territories_captured_by_Israel#Remove_Tag_Citing_Neutrality.2FAccuracy_Dispute 2008-01-27 08:35 2009-02-17 04:32
Talk:Avigdor_Lieberman/Archive_2#Cities.2FSettlements_in_occupied.2Fdisputed_territory 2009-02-20 14:01 2009-02-21 03:25 1 day
Talk:Palestinian_territories#Occupied_Palestinian_Territories_or_Palestinian_Territories.3F 2009-01-13 21:20 2009-02-27 07:47
Talk:Israeli-occupied_territories#reference_tag_broken 2009-03-09 04:15
Talk:Occupied_territories#A_modest_demand. 2009-04-18 06:09 2009-04-20 05:45 2 days
Talk:Jerusalem_Light_Rail#occupied_to_disputed_and_such 2009-04-19 17:37 2009-04-20 09:57 1 day
Talk:Golan_Heights#.22are_currently_part_of_the_State_of_Israel.22 2009-05-15 18:24 2009-05-15 19:42 1 hour
Talk:Israel/Archive_29#Disputed_Territories 2009-02-25 2009-05-24 19:23
Talk:Syria#Biased_Golan_heights_section_3 2009-03-27 04:42 2009-06-04 15:59
Talk:Golan_Heights#.22disputed.22_.22Jewish_communities.22 2009-05-26 07:40 2009-06-07 16:27
Talk:Ariel_(city)#Neutrality.3F 2009-05-25 04:05 2009-06-08 03:56
Talk:Golan_Heights#The_Neutrality_of_this_Article_is_Disputed 2009-06-10 15:59 2009-06-14 18:40
Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Terminology_in_regards_to_the_Golan_Heights 2009-06-14 19:15 2009-06-23 07:14
Talk:Golan_Heights#Claims_of_occupation_in_the_lead 2009-06-23 08:13 2009-06-23 16:47
Talk:Golan_Heights#I_do_not_support_the_actions_and_views_of_Oren0_as_3rd_party 2009-06-23 08:51 2009-06-25 01:02
Talk:Golan_Heights#some_more_thing_left 2009-06-24 12:47 2009-06-25 08:18
Talk:Golan_Heights#occupied_territories 2009-06-26 02:44 2009-06-26 13:52
Talk:Israel#UN_Security_Council_Res._242_and_338_and_Disputed_Territories 2009-06-19 17:55 2009-06-28 15:35
Talk:Golan_Heights#Is_this_article_gonna_follow_the_rules_of_wikipedia_or_not.3F 2009-07-01 20:42

--Peter cohen (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC), most recent post 00:15, 2 July 2009

As requested below, I have now made a formatted list sorted by last edit and have also added a brand new entry which ahs appeared wince this request was opened.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nsaum75

I am the editor who opened the RfC on Golan Heights[2]. The article had been subject to edit warring over terminology related to how the Golan should be described. Editors had been fighting over whether to refer to land area as "disputed" or "occupied" by Israel; there were also edit wars over whether or not to call the settlements established by Israel as "Israeli Settlements", "Jewish Communities" or "Illegal Settlements". In hopes of trying to create some progress in the debate, I felt that the RfC should be opened as to at least establish a consensus as to whether the land area should be referred to as "disputed", "occupied", or some other variation.

During the period of time that the RfC was open, a number of new editors (with little or no edit history) began making posts stating similar positions.

In addition to new editors, a significant number of IP addresses (with little or no edit history) began posting similar positions.

At this point, I became concerned that there may be possible WP:MEAT, WP:SPA or WP:CANVASS involved, so I placed a neutral notice regarding Wikipedia's policies at the top of the RfC.[12], [13]. I also approached ANI and requested input regarding my concerns about possible WP:MEAT, SPA and CANVASS.[14]

After the RfC had been posted for a week, I made another post to the AN[15] requesting a neutral, 3rd party administrator check over the RfC and close it. This was met with disatisfaction by some editors, as the closing Admin had userboxes on his page that he was Jewish and supported the existance of an Israeli state.(see: Talk:Golan_Heights#I_do_not_support_the_actions_and_views_of_Oren0_as_3rd_party) It was argued that since the editor was Jewish and supported the existance of Israel, he "can not be considered neutral to this subject, of course he is gonna side with Israel."

The debate degraded to the point where there was an argument over whether or not the Arabic or Hebrew name for the Golan Heights should come first in the lead. (see: Talk:Golan_Heights#Arabic_text_before_Hebrew). There was a further issue raised with one of the main contributors to RfC, User:Supreme_Deliciousness, because of several anti-Israeli and pro-syrian viewpoints expressed on his userpage.[16]

In my opinion, as things currently stand, it has become next to impossible to find a fair and equitable balance between editors and sourced information, on both sides of the issue. Debate is always good, as it helps to improve articles by making sure all information is questioned and researched; and everyone is inherently bias to some extent (even if they do not realize it) however strong nationalistic viewpoints expressed by a several editors have unfortunately made it difficult for a consensus to be reached regarding balanced terminology in this and a number of other Arab-Israeli related articles.

Statement by {Party 3}

Comment by uninvolved user Jtrainor

I think it would probably be a good idea for Arbcom to jump on this before it turns into the usual shitstorm that all I/P related arguments end up as. Jtrainor (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/1/3)

  • Comment I am leaning towards accepting this case, although wondered whether amending the previous West Bank/J&S case would be more helpful to facilitate finding a solution to the naming of the Golan Heights, which is technically not covered by the former case. To clarify, Peter Cohen asked me a couple of days ago for my opinion, and upon looking at the recent RfC was struck by its lack of clarity and structure compared with the soon-to-close Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Placename guidelines. Given there has now been a RfC on the Golan Heights, I suspect this is the port of final call (?) Addendum, depending on other arbs' views on the situation thus far, another outcome might be a motion for one or more neutral admins to chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Recuse. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Query. I clicked on two of those discussions mentioned by Peter, and they were concluded prior to (or as a consequence of) the W&S case closing. I think it would be important to understand how many of those discussions mentioned by Peter occurred after the W&S case, and post W&S discussions are the ones we would want to review more closely. A chronological list, or table with start and end of the threads, would be very helpful. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Questions. Have the content noticeboards been used to draw some outside input? (Specifically, I am considering the NPOV and ethnic conflicts noticeboards.) If not, I suggest noting the disagreement (with discussion links) at both, asking for outside input and the attention of uninvolved administrators. Are there extensive conduct issues involved? If so, can these be handled on the community level? If so, what method would be best? If not, why not? Are you asking for a requirement that certain naming disputes related to the Israel/Palestine topic area be discussed centrally at the IPCOLL page? Or, are you perhaps suggesting that a centralized request for comments be utilized? If not, what exactly are you requesting? On the matter of topic, are you asking that this one specific dispute be bound by such a requirement or that all naming disputes meeting certain criteria be so bound? If the latter, what benchmarks would you suggest? --Vassyana (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Also noting that the parties involved in this dispute should be notified of this request. --Vassyana (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost

Initiated by SarekOfVulcan (talk) at 03:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

The article on web hosting company DreamHost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is hopelessly deadlocked between satisfied customers SarekOfVulcan and Scjessey, and ex-customer Judas278 and non-customer 194x144x90x118. Judas and 194x treat any positive information about the company as advertising or a conflict of interest on Sarek and Scjessey's parts. This has resulted in the article being fully protected for most of the past two months, first by SarekOfVulcan and almost immediately after expiration by PhilKnight, the informal mediator. Suggestions for new edits are met with claims of advertisement. Information such as the names of the founders of the company and that they met in college is challenged as controversial and BLP-violating. Civility has occasionally (or frequently) gone out the window on various people's parts. Reducing the archive period from 90 days to 45 days was decried as abusive and disruptive, even though it reduced the talk page from 285K to 80K. There were allegations that Sarek misused his admin bit by removing a sentence and then fully protecting the article.

It is currently undergoingjust underwent an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DreamHost (2nd nomination) that seems quite likely to endwas closed as keep.

I have not filed an RFC/U, because there isn't just one editor with issues here, and I think it's fairer to subject all involved parties to scrutiny.

  • Added Theserialcomma as an involved party, since he's a long-term editor, and just made an edit showing the same problems I mentioned above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Current dispute

We currently have a slow-motion edit war over a new section of the article. On June 23, Scjessey added Category:File hosting. On June 30, Bjweeks removed it, but readded it after a query from Scjessey and commented "it might be helpful if the article explained or mentioned why it is in the category". I came up with a short section on the "Files Forever" feature, sourcing it to an Official DreamHost Wiki revision created by the company's founder explaining how it worked, and a Spanish-language blog called "Genbeta", which is listed in Google News and has about 60 pages of results in Google when searching for the name, to show that there was apparently more than just English-language interest in the feature. Judas reverted later that day, with the edit summary "If significant, you could find more than One Spanish language source, and self-published unreliable wiki" TheRealFennShysa reverted, asking for better rationales, and Theserialcomma took it back out, commenting "the file hosting section should be removed. it's not encyclopedic" and "removin the whole section. um, the source is a blog."

On the talkpage, he said "as an admin, i'd hope that you would know how wikipedia feels about blogs in situations like this" and "well, if you don't, i'll just tell you. the spanish language blog is not a good source and should be removed". I responded, "Why is it not a good source? How do you know it's not the Spanish equivalent to TechCrunch?" and pointed him to the RSN. He responded, "how about you prove that it *is* reliable? your spanish must not be as good as mine, because i took one look at it and discovered it's an unreliable blog, which is why i removed it. you added it back without knowing anything about the site, or that it even was a blog" and pointed me at the RSN. Scjessey commented, saying he'd like to see better sourcing added, and Theserialcomma posted, apropos of nothing in Scjessey's comment that I could see, "spanish blogs don't become reliable because you don't speak spanish." After some more sourcing discussion, including Theserialcomma's comment of "but don't listen to me; i only speak spanish and actually understand the site. edit war instead", Judas278 inquired, "Projecting forward, will you want to re-publish their entire marketing and PR campaigns here in this article, since you can find a self-published blog or wiki article by a founder, for each campaign? Is this the purpose of wikipedia.?"

Shortly afterward, 194x commented, "I'm gonna go out on a limb but these repeated attempts to include advertising material by Scjessey can in no way be considered good faith edits since he should be fully aware that this sort of conduct is not acceptable." (This, incidentally, is the metaphoric limb Scjessey was responding to in the diff 194x posted below.) This statement was inaccurate, considering that Scjessey had done nothing to the article since his addition of the category a week and a half previously. After Scjessey's comment, Theserialcomma said, "How exactly do you 'metaphorically' snap someone's limb off and smash them over the head with it", misconstruing the comment.

Earlier today, in a discussion about protecting the article while undergoing arbitration (if we get back to net +4), 194x said "Admission of guilt: It's like this the other day Scjessey suggested something and I responded to it with a *Strong oppose and some explanation but that's not really the way one is supposed to respond to such things, one is rather to try and discuss the matters and such but the thing is with this user Scjessey is that he repeatedly suggest adding advertisement material to the article and such and it has been discussed repeatedly before but he just doesn't take a hint so well one just simply loses his patience with him and doesn't assume good faith like one is mandated to do cause good faith seems so far fetched in his case and instead just tries to save some time by voicing his opposition in the clearest way possible. I also want to state that when it comes to this article that a new attitude simply isn't credible either. There you have it I'm guilty." (What I'm getting out of that is a refusal to assume good faith and an unwillingness to move forward. YMMV.)

Since then, Judas took the section back out with "most discussion disagrees with the addition, so removing" and I restored with "Nothing like a consensus to delete at this point. It's not advertising, and it's not controversial." (For those keeping score at home, that's one addition and two restorations by me, one restoration by TheRealFennShysa, two removals by Judas278, and one removal by Theserialcomma.)

Responses

Response to arbitrator Risker
  • Actually, I don't think this is a content dispute, because the disputes have been spread over every part of the article and talk page. It seems clear to me that it's a user conduct issue -- I'm just not sure whose conduct is the problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Response to Judas278
  • I believe that calling me a liar right in the case illustrates nicely why I consider this a conduct issue, rather than a content dispute.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In this request, you say that you've listened to other editors and modified your behavior. On the talk page, you point to a previous revision calling company sites "advertising" with the comment "told you so". That doesn't sound like learning to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You say in your statement that you began editing when you saw tags being removed. I asked you earlier if you had previously edited as Guantanamo247 (talk · contribs): you never answered. Guantanamo's pattern of username, use of language, and allegations of off-wiki activity by Scjessey look a great deal like yours. Did you edit in 2007 under this username?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "I thought this was the place for briefly determining a need for a case, not for arguing the case" -- I agree, which is why my first statement was short and as neutral as I could make it, including personal attacks and questions about misusing the bit. However, Vassyana stated they were open to being convinced there was after all a need for Arbitration, so the only way to do that was to expand on my statement.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Response to 194x144x90x118
  • Regarding "Let me start by saying that I've acctually only ONCE! edited the article and cosidering that I can not see how I've been responsible for the 'the article being fully protected for most of the past two months'":
  1. I didn't say that
  2. Reviewing your contribution history to the talkpage:
    • first edit: reverted by Theserialcomma without comment.
    • second edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "BTW if anybody goes ahead and deletes this section of mine again then you'll have a new warrior stepping upto the plate to participate in this little discussion of yours.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
    • third edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "Feel free to remove this section and my remarks AGAIN which sparked this whole auto archiving discussion in the first place, I'll just put them right back up and then some.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
    • next edit: included "archiving ... is an attempt to bury the evidence by the same people who have so far put a great deal of energy into making the entire article about Dreamhost seem like one big 'Ahhh all normal'."
    • next edit: included "Oh do not attempt to act like you're just being an honest wikipedian out to improve the online encyclopedia.", reverted by Scjessey for soapboxing
    • next edit: restored third edit, reverted by me for discussing subject rather than article.
    • next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted by Theserialcomma.
    • next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted in two chunks by Onorem for discussing subject and me for personal attacks. After a bit more of this, I semi-protected the talk page.
    • Later on, right after full protection on the article had expired: "This article is not protected so anyone is free to edit it at his own discretion.... I won't allow this article to be turned into a nice free biased advertisement for dreamhost." Shortly after this comment, PhilKnight re-protected the article.

So yeah, you have been responsible for a lot of the protection here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I've been watching 194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs) for a while. Something appears to be not right. Their second edit ever is way too knowledgeable (and snarky) for them to be a new user. I suggest checkuser. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the user previously edited as an unregistered account from that IP address, see 194.144.90.118 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). Thatcher 13:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Did you check for the involvement of other accounts, or is it just the named account and the IP? I am not sure why this editor has been somewhat caustic from the start. 194, can you say whether somebody mistreated you at some point in your history here? Jehochman Talk 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Upon quick review it seems that 194 was on the wrong end of a bad sock puppetry permablock. That would tend to make a user feel grumpy. Jehochman Talk 04:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not keen to preempt the Committee, but it might be useful for these matters to be reviewed at WP:COIN or WP:NPOVN. This is the sort of case that those boards routinely process. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Judas278

I welcome any productive steps. I am not familiar enough with the options to have an opinion on the best route. I believe significant limitation of Scjessey's participation is appropriate. In summary, SarekOfVulcan's statement, “Simon, please take another look at WP:OWN. You're way too close to this article to look at it objectively” was excellent advice, which unfortunately has not been followed.

I do not treat “any positive information” as advertising or COI. I do object to pro-company editors removing well-sourced negative information while adding positive information without using similar standards, or by claiming “non-controversial” exceptions. I am an ex-customer, not a fan, and I previously observed the development of this article. I began editing the article when I saw the COI, NPOV and SELFPUB tags being removed, without significant changes in the article to justify removal. Example: I suggested a positive addition, covering “ceph”, but did not know of sources for it.

Scjessey is much more than a “satisfied customer.” Without listing details, several different editors have said his editing at DreamHost appears biased by pro-DreamHost COI. Also, he is creator of an off-wiki web site intended to influence or discourage participation, including at Wikipedia, by “outing” personal information and user name(s). This information was provided privately to Philknight and is available privately on request.

Civility: No question Scjessey regularly “welcomed” new editors at DreamHost with prompt, un-discussed edit reverts and accusations of bad faith. The recent Restrictions as a result of his participation in the Obama articles seems to confirm that problems at DreamHost are not an isolated incident. In my opinion, his talk page activity appears largely argumentative and drives away other editors, rather than working to compromise or consensus. I think 194x got off to a “bad” start on this article because s/he stepped into a bad atmosphere, and the Talk page was soon also semi-blocked as a result, forcing him to register. On the whole I think s/he's been a somewhat moderating influence at DreamHost. I try to take SarekOfVulcan 's involvement with good faith, but I will say he does sometimes seem to use Admin power to excess, to force his desired outcome. His apparent attempts at humor sometimes work, but sometimes inflame or derail discussions. Judas278 (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses

  • Response to SarekOfVulcan adding Theserialcomma: A voice of reason, from whom I learned to improve my interpretations of policies and guidelines. Was it simply disagreement over an edit, or a suggestion causing the addition?
  • Response to Jehochman talk page: Is it necessary to cast aspersions and doubts? I have listened to advice from other impartial editors, and modified my actions because of it.
Response to initiator/admin SarekOfVulcan

I await direction or questions from Arbitrators or impartial authorities. I thought this was the place for briefly determining a need for a case, not for arguing the case or "Long, rambling additions." Judas278 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

Although still somewhat bruised from my previous encounter with ArbCom, I would be delighted to see the committee accept this case. Broadly-speaking, I concur with the statement made by SarekOfVulcan. DreamHost has very few regular editors, which makes it easy for one or two individuals to disrupt the editing environment - the lack of participants also makes it easy for editors to make ownership claims. Of particular concern, however, is the behavior of a disgruntled ex-customer who has essentially destroyed a peaceful and productive editing atmosphere by attacking the subject, and then the editors, of this article.

Attempts to improve the article are constantly obstructed (again, fairly easy to do with so few editors to help establish consensus) and advice gained from informal mediation, requests for comment and third opinions is essentially being ignored. Suggestions for article improvement are quashed with claims of "advertising" or protracted meta discussion.

It is my hope that rather than taking punitive measures, ArbCom will instead focus on offering guidance to all involved parties (both named and otherwise) as to how to resolve conflict and return to productive editing. I also hope that this might lead to a wider discussion of the problems associated with single-purpose accounts, as I have found that these are a frequent source of disruption across much of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Update following comments from Arbitrators

I find myself in broad agreement with statements made by arbitrators John Vandenberg and Vassyana. Until John mentioned it, I wasn't even aware of the Content Noticeboard. It seems logical to try to resolve content-related matters there before imposing on ArbCom. Likewise, the matters concerning editor behavior have really evolved from the perception that several parties have some sort of conflict of interest - something which should be resolved at the COI Noticeboard. I'd be more than happy to give those avenues a try, particularly because they would attract the welcome attention of uninvolved administrators. Even if that proves unsuccessful, the least it would do would be to help parties collect their thoughts/evidence, and provide arbitrators with additional material to help with their deliberations. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by 194x144x90x118

Let me start by saying that I've acctually only ONCE! edited the article and cosidering that I can not see how I've been responsible for the "the article being fully protected for most of the past two months" let me continue by stating that I have not treated all positive information about the company as advertisements Line 930 the third edit.

Let me also state that I OBJECT! to the autoarchiving bot being abused The bots page the text that appears on it: "NOTE: Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there." . Bottom line, Don't use the bot unless you first establish a consensus. The acts of Sarekofvulcan and Scjessey were nothing less than gross abuse of the bot repeatedly changing its settings without first respecting the requirement that a consensus needed to be obtained. Something which can be compared to impaling someone with a white flag.

Now lets address the players involved

Theserialcomma

I fail to see how this user has possibly done anything wrong.

Judas

Scjesseys and Sareks complaint in the past regarding this user is that he is an SPA but only being an SPA isn't an offense according to wikipedias rules.

Scjessey

Lets begin with viewing other peoples complaints regarding this user from his very own talkpage:

1!!! Complaint and "I will NEVER make any more donations like I have in the past." by User:Carterwj.

2!!! Complaint regarding personal attacks made by Scjessey, by User:Caspian blue.
3!!! Complaint regarding civility made by User:Bigtimepeace
4!!! Complaint from me regarding repeated personal attacks on the dreamhost talkpage.
5!!! Scjessey calling someone a "worthless coward".

Now lets take a look at the Dreamhost talkpage shall we?

1!!! Scjessey threatening violence or making an inappropriate joke "I swear I'm going to metaphorically snap that limb off and bash somebody over the head with it"
11:06, 11 March 2009 Innapropriate sock claims "I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly."
00:27, 3 April Personal attack by Scjessey "Have you no interested in edititing anything else on Wikipeda, other than this crusade of hate?"
16:31, 4 April 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Why don't you go and learn the rules and then come back and try to be a productive Wikipedian, rather than a disruptive SPA?"
20:31, 5 April 2009 "You are being deliberately obtuse and tendentious because you have a grudge against the company. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss this with you, because you have the red mist of DreamHost rage in your eyes" Personal attack by Scjessey.
01:02, 7 April 2009 Scjessey personal attack "You don't make good faith edits. All your edits are in bad faith, because your sole reason for editing here is to discredit DreamHost"
01:58, 7 April 2009 "Wikipedia is not your personal playground of hate."
02:29, 9 April 2009 "Also, since you are just a DreamHost-hating SPA, your "challenge" is essentially meaningless."
02:04, 4 May 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Sometimes the senseless outnumber the sensible - that's probably how Bush managed to twice get elected."
02:30, 4 May 2009 "I regard you very much as part of a coalition of the foolish,"
03:59, 20 April 2009 Personal attacks "You are way off base here. Your edits have the sole effect of attacking the company, whereas my edits are for the benefit of the Wikipedia project. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who has the conflict of interest."
04:14, 20 April 2009 Threats and personal attacks "If this were any other article I edit on, you would have been blocked long ago for being a disruptive SPA. You have escaped this long only because this is a low-trafficked, low-importance article. Now please stop your misrepresentations."
21:01, 27 May 2009 Personal attacks "If the banhammer doesn't fall upon you, I will simply be ignoring you from now on."

I'd dig up the diffs and show them to you guys but I just don't have more time today and besides all of this can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DreamHost&oldid=299280215

Statement by Sjakkalle

Although my (brief) experience with 194x144x90x118 was not related to the DreamHost dispute, I think consideration of 194x144x90x118's conduct in general is in order. A couple of weeks ago he launched a series of personal attacks (e.g. [17])) and intimidation (e.g. [18]) against editors at the chess WikiProject during a content dispute, and the presence of this arbcom request also involving possible disruptive editing from 194x144x90x118 is an indication that this editor's behavior in general may require further scrutiny, possibly sanctions. I don't know about the other editors listed in the request, so I shall not comment on them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

I'm waiting on direction from the arbitrators about opening this, as we're still missing some statements and three arbitrators still appear to be on the fence for this issue. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please hold on for now. I think a couple of us are waiting to see what might happen over the next couple of days. At the moment the case has fallen below "net 4" anyway, but that might change again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All users posting here should be aware that personal attacks will not be tolerated here and will be summarily removed by clerks or arbitrators on sight. RFAR has enough drama associated with it already without people insulting one another. Please maintain a basic level of civility and decorum, as you would anywhere else on Wikipedia. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/4/0/1)

  • Accept to consider the conduct of everyone involved in this matter. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline There is an AFD outstanding, and an informal mediation that is said to be ongoing. Wait for the AFD to close, and then attempt to use formal mediation. You may also want to try the new Wikipedia:Content noticeboard out. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Awaiting further submissions. I would like to see the AfD to close as well before determining next steps. John Vandenberg's suggestions for alternatives are good. I'm of the impression, however, that this is a content dispute that still has some opportunity for resolution. Risker (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline at this time, in agreement with Vassyana. I recommend that the editors involved make use of the Content noticeboard and take other steps. Consider requests for comment and posting at business-related wikiproject talk pages seeking other opinions. This does not appear to be ripe for arbitration yet, and I would like to see more community involvement tried first. I do urge all involved editors to remain open-minded in reviewing other options here; whether or not one is a "satisfied customer" should be irrelevant to one's edits. Risker (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept to look at the user conduct issues. The Afd's closed one way or the other is not going to fix the problems that I see looking through editing history of some of the involved parties. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Awaiting further statements, including the other named parties' views on whether they see a path to resolving their dispute here short of arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Waiting for other statements. If other parties are willing to seek dispute resolution then it could be declined. if not it should be accepted. We'll see. Wizardman 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Change to accept. Wizardman 20:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept; regardless of the AfD results, some poor behavior has occurred around this topic that bear looking into. — Coren (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept - AfD now closed as 'keep', conduct needs review. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept:  Roger Davies talk 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. There are other avenues of dispute resolution left available. As an example noted by Jehochman, there are noticeboards suitable for handling and clarifying aspects of this situation. I'm also inclined to believe that an uninvolved administrator or two can be found to address any remaining concerns. I am open to being convinced that arbitration is necessary here, but I am skeptical to the notion that this dispute cannot be resolved at the community level. ArbCom should not preempt or supplant the community. On a broader note, the community should take note of this dispute. It is repeated throughout a significant portion of our company articles. Noticeboards discussions and other outside input from the community constitute a necessary step in clarifying policy in relation to those areas and (thus) better addressing these disputes. It is infinitely better for the community to establish this context and application. --Vassyana (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reject at this time. Behavioural issues seem low-level and not beyond ordinary administrator intervention, if any is warranted. The content dispute is the core of this, and there are further dispute resolution options to pursue in relation to that, particularly ones that involve seeking outside opinion (this is especially true if party-internal methods such as mediation are not being productive). The request for comment linked to above seemed to attract only two uninvolved users; consider contacting a relevant WikiProject or advertising a request at a relevant noticeboard (though keeping relevant guidelines in mind). --bainer (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Use this section to request further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

How to file a request (please use this format!):

  1. Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
  2. Click here to edit the clarification subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
  3. Using the format provided by the template, try to state your request and reasoning in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
  4. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

  • It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
  • Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
  • Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 community discussion

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


Statement by Radjenef

This is a request for clarification concerning the centralized discussion that has been taking place in WP:Centralized discussion/Macedonia according to WP:ARBMAC2#Establishing_consensus_on_names. As far as I can tell from the reading of that remedy, the panel of referees is to oversee while the issue is presented for discussion by the greater community. Once that discussion is over, they are "instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable [policy] rationale". We decided to winnow down the number of proposals before presenting them to the greater community. As far as I can tell, most users were under the agreement that we would remove those proposals that were supported by only one user (or no users): [25], [26], [27]. With that in mind, we proceeded to vote in order to indicate what our preferences where for those proposals. Despite the fact that one of the proposals (Proposal G) was the first preference of more than one users [28], the referees decided to remove it stating that it didn't have a proper policy rationale. I believe that the proposal ([29]) actually provided a very solid rationale that was based on policy. In addition to that, evidence arguing that "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a more common term than "Republic of Macedonia" had been provided to back the policy rationale. I realize that the referees and some users disagree with that rationale, but that is their POV on the interpretation of policy, not necessarily that of the wider community. I believe that this proposal should be presented to the wider community for discussion since, ultimately, it is the community that will decide how to interpret policy in this issue. After the community discussion is over, the referees can still use their discretion to disregard opinions that are not supported by policy. Disagreeing, however, with the proposal's policy rationale is not valid enough reason to prevent it from ever reaching the wider community. --Radjenef (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo

Actually, there was never a solid agreement among all participants as to how many proposals to put forward and how to decide which ones. The actual decision-making power was left to the three referees by ARBMAC2 and their appointment by Rlevse. While the participants in the discussion can propose processes, it is completely within the purview of the three referees as to how to actually proceed. The three referees agreed unanimously that Radjenef's proposal was not compliant with Wikipedia policy and therefore would not be presented to the wider community for comment. (This is not a "vote", but a request for comment.) Here are their exact quotes from the discussion of this at [30]:

Fairness? Is it fair to allow the community to consider a proposal that I believe I would have no choice but to reject? J.delanoygabsadds 14:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
To avoid J standing on his own on this issue, I would like to indicate my concurrence that in my interpretation of the Arbcom case, specifically the aspect cited by J above, proposal G would be difficult to acknowledge as having consensus even if it had significant local support. In this respect, I am happy with J's action above. (after e/c) The original plan was a preference voting system, not the system you describe - that system is enacted properly by J's alteration Fritzpoll (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The referees are all in agreement on this issue. While I understand that editors may strongly feel their point of view is best in this case, we have to be guided by community norms and existing policy. Shell babelfish 14:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll's assessment below is accurate. "Largely unchallenged" is the same as my "never a solid agreement". What there was general agreement on (not unanimous, but general), was that the number of proposals needed to be reduced before going out for comment. The STV method was agreed upon by the referees and several participants and, without serious objection ("largely unchallenged"), was the method implemented.

Statement by Fritzpoll

The description above is not entirely accurate. There was a consensus to winnow the proposals down, and I proposed using a preferential vote using STV among the particpants to get us down to 3-4 proposals. This proposal went broadly unchallenged, and an informative poll began. Running through the preferential voting system of STV, you will find that proposal G was the fifth choice. Given that we only want four to go through, it makes sense for the top four to go through. Proposal G also has other issues relating to policy and guideline application, but the basic complaint, that the means of selecting the proposals to go through for further discussion was implemented in a flawed way is incorrect. I would welcome any indication from Arbcom that we are acting against their resoltions, so that we can make the necessary adjustments before the discussion gets too much further along.

Statement by J.delanoy

My understanding of the instructions given to the referees was that we were required to reject any proposal that we felt was not based in policy. Based on the comments of the other referees and myself, I think it is clear that we are in agreement that Proposal G was not within policy. Frankly, it would be just plain wrong to submit a proposal for consideration that all of us would have no choice but to reject out of hand, even if consensus were gained for it. J.delanoygabsadds 18:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Advertising_this_discussion J.delanoygabsadds 05:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

As much as I apologize for being a drain on the already limited resources of the folks at ArbCom, I hope this can be dealt with quickly and rather decisively. If we have to fight out every decision made by the referees, then delegating responsibilities for the discussion was of little use. The referees were in concert on this issue and believe that presenting proposals doomed to failure is an exercise in futility. I'm sure we'd all like to see a resolution on this issue; fragmenting discussion with inappropriate proposals does not advance that goal. Shell babelfish 18:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

At the risk of beating a dead horse: I'll just add that whoever wants to argue the merits of "former Yugoslav...", or wants to see it argued so that it can be treated as settled fairly once and for all, has still plenty of room for doing so in other parts of the survey. There are active proposals involving "former Yugoslav" in all three RfC pages that deal not with page titles but article text. If those get rejected (as it seems likely they will), it will be obvious that it will exclude its use in the main page title a fortiori; conversely, if they should unexpectedly receive overwhelming consensus, I'm sure the parallel decision on the main page title could be reconsidered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Septentrionalis

I strongly oppose use of FYROM or "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in any but the most narrow of contexts. Nevertheless, if I supported them, I would not find FP's opportunities sufficient to explain my position.

An opportunity has been lost here; an open invitation to provide policy-based arguments for use of FYROM would either produce one, or (what I happen to think more likely) constitute strong evidence that there isn't any. Either would have been a gain for the encyclopedia. It may have been worth doing things this way for the sake of civility and order; but a price has been paid, and I hope it will not be paid again unless there is a clear net profit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment To reiterate what I said here: I have to agree with Fritzpoll, there is no reason to put up a proposal that does not follow wiki policy and guides. Let's take an extreme example, if user group A says "let's write a version of article X that totally supports our view and ignores others even though they have solid factual support for their view", this would clearly violate NPOV guides and should not even be considered. Problems arise when people don't agree on if a version is in violation (example: is edit X a BLP vio or not?). If the consensus is version G is not in compliance with policy, it should not be offered, esp if 4 other options are viable options with a fair amount of support. And ChrisO is correct, the referees have the authority to decide this, so stop the squabbling and get this settled by the deadline. Adding, I also agree with J.delanoy and Fritzpoll above. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm in full agreement with Rlevse's comment. The referees were correct to invalidate a proposal that would obviously be against policy. The referees have the authority to make this evaluation of the proposal and to take action. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with preceding two comments. The referees have been empowered to act as such because of the long-term issues with the subject at hand. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we would only reconsider any decision the panel makes if some gross error or misconduct were shown, given that they were appointed to oversee the process as the content decisions involved are not ours to make. Prima facie the decision is sound, both on the policy bases as the other arbitrators mention above me, but also (although this would not matter on its own) on the poll results too, as Fritzpoll discusses in his statement. J.delanoy is correct; the remedy was intented to prevent localised weight of numbers from countermanding global policy. --bainer (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've been re-reading the text of the remedy that was passed (Wikipedia:ARBMAC2#Establishing consensus on names), and I fear that it wasn't made clear enough there who was responsible for setting up the discussion. It only says that the panel "will assess the consensus developed during the discussion". It doesn't say they should chose which options are presented for discussion, nor that they should set up the discussion (though, understandably, this is what has happened, and it has been going well from what I can see, other than this need for clarification). Given this, I would say that either option G should be left in (there is merit in at least mentioning it in a list of other possible titles), or an option for "other" (where people state their preferred name, giving reasons based in policy) or "none of the above" should be included. It is not inconceivable that when opened up and advertised to a wider audience, that someone will come up with a new (policy-based) argument, for one of the other possible titles, that no-one has used before. However, this is all beside the point. Discussion and comments have already started, and I see I've been left an invitation to go and express my opinion there (and I do intend to participate in these discussions). On a procedural note, could those who set up this latest Macedonia discussion please note somewhere where they publicised it? See Wikipedia:Publicising discussions for thoughts on that (disclaimer: I wrote the initial version of that 'how-to guide'). Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks to Future Perfect (on my talk page) and to J. delanoy (above) for the notes about where the proposals are being publicised, and where this publicity is being documented. Ideally, those that oversaw the setting up of the discussion would have posted the notices, but that is moot now. In future (and in this case where still applicable) may I suggest that the referees of such discussions (working with those involved in the issues and delegating to them as needed) take responsibility for the wording and posting of such notices, any updates needed to the notices, and keeping a centralised record of where the discussion was publicised. It is a lot of work, but if you set up a discussion intended to get wide-ranging consensus, it is an important part of the process. One more point - when I visited the discussions in question, it was not clear how long the proposals will be discussed for - though this is clearly mentioned on the main page (one month). Sometimes it is best for the notices to say how long the discussion will run for, and for thought to be given to notices placed in places where they will be automatically archived (after a few days or a week) before the discussion ends - i.e. should all the notices remain visible for one month? Having said that, I'd like to reiterate here my support for the work done so far by the three administrators who are helping to set up and guide this discussion. Hopefully the comments here will help. Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fully concur with bainer. --Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rlevse and Stephen Bain. The actions taken by the referees to date are within their scope. Risker (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with above as well. Wizardman 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the points above, as well as add a further note: the entire point of selecting referees for this discussion is to avoid the endless picking of nits that is certain to appear when divisive disputes are "discussed" without a firm guiding hand. That they have the latitude to constrain the debate to within policy (and decorum) is a requirement, and the committee supports them fully in that endeavor. — Coren (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

Note: per terms of arbitration remedy, I request that a clerk notify the parties involved

Statement by Wikidemon

Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to (a) unilaterally criticize each other, or (b) participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits?

My understanding is no. I supported the remedies in question on the hope and assumption they would put an end to accusations of bad faith made against me for months on end concerning my work on Obama-related articles, an issue close to the core of the case. I follow that by not mentioning them by name or deed, and by avoiding if I can any page or procedure where they are active. I make a reluctant exception here, because I have been accused of bad faith, trolling, and stalking[31][32][33][34] four times in the last day. This troubles me, and I wish it would stop. I am therefore asking a clarification on whether these accusations are prohibited, or whether I should just try to ignore them. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Note - I am not seeking any enforcement or action at this time. The rules are not currently explicit. So just a clarification. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

As someone who might well end up enforcing the ArbCom remedies in this case, I would also like a clarification on this point. Right now Wikidemon and Scjessey are restricted from interacting with ChildofMidnight, and the latter is restricted from interacting with the former two. In my view, this formulation should extend to commenting about one another, at least in a negative manner, even though that was not at all explicitly part of the decision. For example, saying "and other terrible editors like _________" on ANI or elsewhere would be considered unacceptable in this view. Simply saying, "I'm restricted from interacting with _________ so I can't comment on that user's comment" would of course be perfectly fine. It's disparaging comments that are the problem, as those do little more than rehash an old dispute (and in the case of Scjessey and ChildofMidnight, they would arguably be problematic in terms of their topic bans).

As such this (already linked by Wikidemon) categorizing Wikidemon as a "troll and stalker" would clearly be unacceptable. Actually it's unacceptable period in my view, but arguably more so given the remedies from the Obama case.

A quick clarification on this from the Arbs would be useful. I'll post notes on Scjessey and ChildofMidnight's talk pages about this if they have not already been informed, since I think those are the only other parties that would be directly affected by whatever the Arbs decide here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick followup to point out that while I don't think ChildofMidnight's recent statements are at all acceptable, I also don't at all think he should be sanctioned for them. I'm just interested in determining how we deal with similar incidents going forward. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
To Casliber or any other Arb, thanks for looking into these issues and posting notes like this on the talk pages of several editors. But those were a bit vague and I'm still unclear as to how to proceed in terms of enforcing the ArbCom decision. If Wikidemon posts a negative, "inflammatory" comment about ChildofMidnight (or vice-versa), should/could the offending editor be blocked per remedies 11 and 11.1 of the Obama case? I think that's what you are saying but I want to be clear, and I want to make sure that the affected editors are clear on this as well. Also you left a note for BaseballBugs who was not formally sanctioned and that somewhat confuses the issue. I think the original question relates solely to ChildofMidnight, Wikidemon, and Scjessey in the context of the ArbCom case and is expressed succinctly by Thatcher below. I just want to make sure we come away from this completely clear on the answer to that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I completely reject the entire substance of ChildofMidnight's comment about my work as an admin. I have done some probation enforcement work on Obama articles in the past, including warning C of M about certain behaviors (for which he was sanctioned by ArbCom, not incidentally). I am not, and never have been, in any dispute with him about content, and warning him in the past does not constitute a dispute. The idea that I have "been very aggressive about stating [my] politics and coming after editors who disagree with [me]" is something C of M obviously believes, but is not remotely borne out by the facts, and I am not beholden to his subjective and erroneous impressions. I of course "think we should abide by NPOV and include multiple perspectives" on the Obama articles and elsewhere and have argued for that repeatedly, as C of M should know if he's read any of my numerous comments on various talk pages.
Working as an admin in a controversial area is not necessarily a lot of fun (I've warned editors on the "other side" from C of M and taken heat from them too), but I'm not going to be forced away from helping to maintain the Obama articles and enforcing the recent ArbCom case simply because C of M does not like the fact that I've warned him in the past (note that I've never even blocked him, and have engaged in seemingly endless conversations with him on my talk page about policy matters - see here for one example - even after he came there hurling accusations at me). If he thinks I'm that bad of an admin, my recall process is here (though C of M might have to get someone else to start the RfC on me given how my process works), and he knows where the board to complain about admin behavior is. I've been watching the Obama articles for awhile (originally beginning before C of M ever edited here) and think I've been fairly helpful. I don't think there's anything that precludes me from enforcing remedies in this case on any party, though I'm sure there are other folks willing to do that as well. I won't reply to further comments from C of M, though I will note he has mentioned my user name ten or so times in the last couple of days in various place, always in a highly negative fashion, while at no point supplying so much as one diff to back up his assertions. His comment about me below is just the most recent example of that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scjessey

I assumed that the "interaction restriction" meant that I should do everything possible (within reason) to avoid interaction and conflict with ChildofMidnight (CoM). For example, I have avoided editing any article or talk page where I have encountered CoM within its recent edit history (last 50 edits). I have also avoided contact/interaction with editors who seem to inhabit CoM's "sphere of influence" - partly on the assumption that there could be a sort of conflict-by-proxy problem. I plan to avoid any "meta matters" in which CoM is participating, whether or not my username is mentioned. This may seem excessively cautious, but I wish to prove to the community that I am doing my best to "turn the page" on past problems and contribute to the project productively. Wikipedia is more than large enough to accommodate us both. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

This issue comes about because numerous editors have come after me on my talk page and on various other boards. This behavior is similar to that I experienced in the past and tried to bring to the attention of Arbcom as a pattern of abuse targeting editors who hold minority viewpoints and dare to try to have them fairly represented in article content in accordance with our neutral point of view WP:NPOV policy. I hope this committee will be helpful in putting a stop to this kind of abuse and harassment as it's extraordinarily damaging to Wikipedia's editing environment and integrity.

Wikidemon's harassment of me including 13 posts on my talkpage in one four hour period is well documented and was entered into evidence in the Arbcom proceeding. Wikidemon's abuse of the ANI process to harass and intimidate editors is also well documented. He's taken me to ANI 5 times, each time inappropriately over a content dispute. Wikidemon has stated that he uses ANI to settle content disputes. Wikidemon refactors other user's statements on article talk pages, user talk pages, and ANI discussion. He has a whole section on his talk page related to me where he's refactored my comments into their own section. He is a disruptive editor, the only editor to refuse mediation on the Rashid Khalidi article where I was trying to help with a 3rd Opinion, and he frequently targets editors whose point of view he doesn't share for abuse and he attempts to get them blocked and banned. This harassment and smearing shouldn't be allowed to go on here.

Since Arbcom's misguided ruling, others have followed his example and been emboldened (as I predicted) by Arbcom's shameful and embarassing misjudgment (including Wizardman's misrepresentations of my polite requests to Wikidemon to focus on article content and to discuss issues over content on article content pages, which Wizardman called "templating"). There was also Wizardman's distortion of my good faith copy-edit on an article talk page as some kind of malicious refactoring. Apparently some diffs were needed to ban me, and I guess that was the best he could come up with.

Given this grotesque miscarriage carried out by this committee and signed onto by the individuals that comprise it, I have little faith in any of your judgment or fairness. Your actions have simply encouraged the abuse and harassment carried out by these individuals. They continue to go after editors with whom they disagree. Another editor who has created numerous articles on political subjects has been harassed and taken to ANI again and again by these characters. They target and harass anyone who has the audacity to try and add content that doesn't toe the line on accolades for Obama and whose politics they disagree with. They've thrown out the idea of collaborating in favor of undermining our core NPOV policy and preventing multiple perspectives from being included in articles. These outrageous behaviors should come as no surprise to this committee since its ruling has tolerated and encouraged these actions. I participated in the Arbcom, after a request from Wizardman to do so, because I had hoped that at least a stop to the worst incivility could be implemented. I had no idea that this committee would endorse the abusive behaviors carried out by these individuals and that this committee would encourage them by going after the editors already targeted and at the receiving end of these disgusting behaviors.

Baseball Bugs has posted on my talk page 7 or so times since your ruling along with other posts by Phgustaff, none of them related to article building. I removed several and asked Baseball Bugs to stop, but he continued to harass me. He's been asked to stop before by admin GTBacchus, but why would he stop? This committee has given its tacit endorsement to that kind of behavior on talk pages and to using ANI reports to go after editors, and so it has continued. If the first one doesn't work maybe the 3rd or the 5th or the 7th will. Shame on this committee and Wizardman in particular for failing to grasp the problem, for failing to address the harassment and abuse of editors through frivolous ANI reports and other methods, and for endorsing this type of censorship and bullying by punishing those affected by it. This abuse shouldn't be acceptable here. That this committee has stood by and not only allowed it to go on, but punished those at the receiving end of it, is disgusting. I'm here to write articles and build an encyclopedia collegially. Not to be harassed by POV pushers like Wikidemon, Tarc, Allstarecho, Bigtimepeace, and others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

<The comment below was a reply in a threaded discussion that was moved here by a clerk. I've collapsed it because it's only tangentially, at best, related to this proceeding>
  • The idea that Bigtimepeace thinks he's an appropriate person to enforce these arbcom remedies is SHOCKING. He is absolutely not neutral and certainly not uninvolved. He's been very aggressive about stating his politics and coming after editors who disagree with him in thinking we should abide by NPOV and include multiple perspectives in our political coverage. I absolutely 100% reject the idea that he should even consider using his tools in relation to this matter, and he should absolutely refrain from using his tools in regards to Obama related subjects where he's made his personal point of view and his desire to enforce it very clear. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • -I was going to post this note on Bigtimepeace's talk page. But I didn't feel comfortable doing that, so I am posting it here instead.-

Hi BTP. I hope you don't mind my commenting here. I read your response to my arbnote. You made a very impressive defense of yourself, going on offense and making various accusations and insinuations against me. I rarely go diff digging, an activity I liken to dumpster diving, so I'm not going to be much help in providing you diffs of our many disputes, but your talk page history should suffice. I'm prohibited/ censored/ blocked/ banned from working on those articles anyway, but I want to make it clear that our disputes over those articles are absolutely content related and that your argument that I'm making stuff up is simply wrong. The idea that we haven't been involved in confrontations and disputes over content and article editing issues is simply not true.

I am absolutely earnest in noting that you need to put down your admin tools and stop behaving aggressively towards editors who you are in conflict with over content issues. I realize you may think you're being fair, neutral and impartial, but as you've indicated previously and is clear from your editing and behavior, you have a personal political view that's very much to one side of the political spectrum. I encourage you to recognize this and to exercise the appropriate restraint and judgment that is warranted. At many RfAs I've seen they ask whether there is a subject the nom is passionate about. It seems that you are unable to recognize your own biases and perspectives and how they are influencing your work here. I've always felt you are welcome, of course, to contribute on those articles, but I again encourage you to exercise self-restraint and to recognize that you are not neutral or impartial with respect to these subjects.

I'm here to build an encyclopedia and to collaborate with those of differing and like views to include appropriate content. I'm not here to wikilawyer with people and to play games. I'm focused on content building and article improvements. I enjoy the range of viewpoints and working out compromises to include them fairly. I apologize if there's anything in this comment that you find offensive or that you think is an attack of any sort. While I have some serious concerns over some of your actions, you generally seem to be well meaning, so I wanted to try to broach the subject with you directly. Believe it or not I think you're a fine fellow and I'd be happy to collaborate with you on any subject. That being said, there is serious issue with your approach and tool use in relation to subjects where your fairness and integrity is clouded by your political beliefs. Please remove this comment if you find it objectionable in any way. Again, I apologize if I've said anything that you think is improper or inappropriate, that is not my intention. Cheers. Take care. Enjoy your weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Unitanode

I'll keep this brief. Having looked at the issue, I can understand how CoM's editing patterns cause some issues at Obama articles. However, his detractors are not without fault. I particularly note the block that William M. Connelly Connolley levied for "incivility." Not only was this block non-preventative, it was also -- apparently -- levied while WMC was inebriated. I would highly recommend that as this clarification is offered, it also be made clear that poking CoM isn't recommended either. There are certain editors whose presence at his talkpage apparently annoys CoM greatly. How difficult would it be to effect something of a "topic ban" on commenting about CoM that would effect some of these editors? Uninvolved eyes are needed badly on this situation, and there are some whose eyes are most certainly not uninvolved at this point. Unitanode 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for misspelling your name. I was attempting to do so from memory, and I made a mistake. I'm not sure what that has to do with my basic point, though, nor why you found it an egregious enough error to post about within my statement. Unitanode 22:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

If spelling "Connolley" is too difficult for you I recommend sticking to "WMC", which most people can cope with William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I didn't make a statement, just a minor comment. This was quietly "statementified" later [35] by someone else. I think it would be better if people make a clearly visible mark when they do such things William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

The issue before the committee is very simple. ChildofMidnight is enjoined from interacting with Wikidemon. Is he allowed to badmouth Wikidemon to third parties? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Thatcher 02:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

What we got here is... failure to communicate...er, no, that's not it...what we have here is a party to ArbCom (Child ofMidnight) who continues to act out the part of the aggrieved victim of an almighty cabal of evil doom out to get him. This has been going on since the first signs that the committee decision was not going to turn out as he expected to. From the pithy "Travesty in motion..." at the top of his talk page to the insults of other party members as "POV pushers" at every opportunity...article talk pages, user talk pages, AN/I, AfD. It isn't just potshots at Wikidemon (not belittling that, though), it is been a week-long, nose-thumbing tirade at anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with CoM that he is the wounded party in all this. I haven't really even been interacting with him at all through any of this; like others, I'm just siting here watching a downward spiral.

Re Caspian Blue, please do not misrepresent the case findings, which was that BB and myself were "reminded to be civil when dealing with hot-button and controversial situations", which was for getting overly snarky with others in contentious talk page discussions. It had nothing to do with ChildofMidnight directly. Obviously we've taken opposing POVs in the subject area, but our interaction never rose to a level of acrimony as with the other two, and there wasn't even an evidence section or a FoF for it. This hasn't stopped CoM from name-dropping me at every opportunity to strike against the perceived cabal, but that's his problem.
BTW, only posting with a slight hangover this morning, all is good!
Re, again, I am not "mocking" CoM or anyone else. Your frequent falsehoods are getting to be about as troublesome as his raging personal attacks are. There are no cabals, other than in your own overactive imagination.
Sigh. Perhaps ChildofMidnight has sufficiently calmed down for the moment, but as long as others like Caspian are going to be allowed to egg him on, fan the "everyone's out to get you" flames, and misrepresent what others are doing here, I doubt we've seen the end of this. Don't think there's anything left to say at this point.

Statement by Caspian blue

More clarification on the "CoM vs Wikidemon and CoM vs SJ remedies" is certainly necessary for the next time. The current remedy is vague in text. I do not fully understand CoM's drama making (yes, he did) in the recent incident, but it is obvious that Tarc, Baseball Bug and other editors in past disputes should "disengaged" from contacting with CoM for their unsolved feuds in the Obama case. They are in part responsible for "throwing gasoline to the flame". I do think that CoM should've taken a break to regain his cool, but Tarc and Baseball bug were admonished/warned for their incivility by the committee, so I think the amendment on that warning should be also intensified. Once Baseball Bug ceases to contact with CoM, then his buddies would find other thing to care.Caspian blue 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, yes, you're warned for "your incivility by the ArbCom", period. True, you're one of flocks coming, mocking CoM and enjoying the whole dramas in these days and of the Obama cabal together with CoM. (does not matter what your political view is in the cabal in my view - US politic drama is not my interest). You're no position to say like the above.
To Bigtimepeace, I consider you a fine admin, but you may be the second last person to "enforce the ArbCom remedy" to CoM because even if you were never in "content disputes" with him, you were in "disputes with him" for whatever reason. If CoM violates the ArbCom sanction, clerks, arbitrators or other assigned admins would carry the enforcement to CoM.--Caspian blue 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, Tarc's another "falsehood" and inappropriate accusations. ArbCom certainly did not catch your behavior in depth. See your own statement filled with inappropriateness. You said you only made one appearance with regard to CoM's ANI report. (falsehood indeed given these appearances to recent 3 ANI reports) [36][37][38][39][40]--Caspian blue 18:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, Tarc even visited my talk page continuing another "bogus" accusations and attacking me with this "falsefood" again.[41]--Caspian blue 22:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It is really tiresome. As long as Tarc is continuing his usual way of speaking[42], ArbCom which officially warned him for his "incivility" could reconsider about Tarc, as well as clarifying the original remedy on Wikidemon/Sj/CoM. Tarc browbeaten me that Unfortunately for you, no one else is buying it. Tarc, trust me, you're wrong on that given that originally there was no remedy on Wikidemon vs CoM. So if you want to convince the ArbCom enough to consider a new remedy on you as fanning the situation, I do not mind. However for your own sake, please "disengage" from CoM and your improper behavior. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BaseballBugs

(Reply to Bigtimepeace moved by clerk) Regardless of any apparent vagueness of the original ArbCom statement to me, in response to Casliber's request I have pledged to disengage from and about CoM. The original issue I have with CoM, which goes back to March 8/9, is clearly not fixable, so it's best to just leave it be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind me. I am impervious to personal attacks. But how long is the community going to let him get away with this kind of soapboxing [43] that's a gross insult to the integrity of everyone else on wikipedia? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PhGustaf

I agree that disengagement is a good idea. CoM has developed a bunker attitude in the last few days; best to let him or her cower in it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate my suggestion that everybody go home and forget about it. Remember the Peter O'Toole line: "We have won a rock in the middle of a wasteland on the shore of a poison sea." There's no better result possible here. PhGustaf (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

While I have the feeling that CofM is very much agitated with recent events, in regards to ArbCom restrictions and sanctions that he feels that is unfair, lashing out at other respected and/or established editors and administrators at ANI is leaving a black mark on what may have been an otherwise credible case. I think the issue before the committee is simple, per what Thatcher noted. CofM should not be interacting with Wikidemon, period. The same should apply back for Wikidemon towards CofM to cover the bases, and any breach of this or continued disruption that does not abide by the bounds of dispute resolution should be intersected with an approperiate sanction. seicer | talk | contribs 04:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Allstarecho

I'm only posting a statement because, once again, CoM has felt the need to name me in his delusional escapades on the Wiki. I'll just simply repost here what I posted at User talk:Casliber#A question for you to Casliber:

  • Somewhat related.. regarding this reply to you by CoM, I will challenge you to find any harassment by me towards CoM. I've about had it with him plastering the same accusation with my name everywhere he touches on WP. I've also had it with his usual pattern of attack/run/blame everyone else for "picking on me". I can not believe that this is being allowed to continue.
  • I'm certainly not disagreeing with your assessment of William. There are issues that need to be addressed. But his issues doesn't excuse CoM's issues - not to mention, it isn't William running around slandering me everytime I turn around - it's CoM.

Now granted, about a month, maybe almost 2 now, ago CoM and I had issues regarding his well-known-now attempts at whitewashing/POV editing of certain articles. Since then? I've pretty much avoided him. Hell, I didn't even participate in the whole Arbcom case even though I certainly had more than enough diffs to shut him down completely - something I had prepared previously for an Rfcu I was planning on opening about him but never did. Let me say this clearly: Continued attacks against me - and others - needs to cease immediately, whether by block or ban and I'm almost to the point of demanding the latter. Now I'm sure I'll be followed here by him bringing up my own Wiki-sins - as he made sure to do yesterday - but I'll just say those aren't the issue here. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 13:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comments while I can see how and why CoM will be feeling frustrated at the moment, repeatedly firing up old disputes isn't helpful at all. I'll have to look a bit more before thinking about actions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: I have been out and about and musing on this. I think we can safely describe the situation as continuing to be highly volatile with several editors (whether justifiably or unjustifiably) feeling very aggrieved, unhappy or angry. Thus any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order. I will now notify the antagonists. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Update 2: Okay, I have posted a calm note to CoM, Wikidemon and Baseball Bugs. Let's see if we can just wind down the tension a bit without the need for sanctions just yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Other people are handling the grit, so I'll make it simple (responding to the question as phrased by Thatcher and Wikidemon): No. It is not acceptable. --Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Casliber's comments, and concur with Vassyana. Risker (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above. Complaining about people who you had disputes with a couple months ago just hurts your case, justified or not. Those accusations are part of why I put this remedy in; to avoid them. Wizardman 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

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


Statement by Heimstern

Not entirely sure if this is going to be a request for clarification or amendment, but starting out here. In ARBMAC2, SQRT5P1D2 was topic-banned from all Macedonia-related articles and talk pages. Recently, he began contributing at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia, which ChrisO, Taivo and I view as a violation of his topic ban (at least the spirit if not the letter). SQRT5P1D2 disagrees, as seen at this request for enforcement. As J.delanoy also feels SQRT5P1D2 is not technically in violation, I'm coming here to ask for clarification. I feel it's abundantly clear that a user banned from talk pages about Macedonia should be equally banned from Wikipedia-space pages that are effectively serving in lieu of talk pages for these articles, such as centralized discussion pages. I ask the committee to clarify this and, if necessary, make proper amendments to the case.

  • To Coren: Can we then treat this situation that way? I.e., can he be reverted and blocked if he continues, or should we wait for more opinions? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo

I agree with Heimstern's assessment. The "Centralized" discussion is in lieu of separate discussions at a variety of articles, so the topic ban should cover that centralized discussion.

Statement by Shadowmorph

I think the topic ban is clear that it is about article space since that was the concern of disruption by this user as it was drafted by the arbitration members. I believe that since many ARBMAC2 parties that were in various way sanctioned by ARBMAC2 did also participate in the centralized discussion it might be the case that this party should be allowed to participate. In any case it was not clear whether that space was covered by his topic ban to suggest that he violated it that. A clarification might be more needed now.Shadowmorph ^"^ 06:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that the fact that the discussion is not in article space is probably happenstance.

Statement by ChrisO

The fact that the discussion is taking place in the Wikipedia namespace rather than article namespace is purely happenstance - the discussion was placed there at my suggestion. It could just as easily have happened in article space. I cannot imagine that the Arbcom meant for SQRT to banned from the discussion if it took place in article space but not if it was in the Wikipedia namespace. This strikes me as an instance of a sanctioned user attempting to exploit an apparent loophole to evade his topic ban. Let's not forget, SQRT was sanctioned for going off-wiki to solicit nationalist partisans to participate in Wikipedia discussions about Macedonia; he's a single-purpose account entirely focused on the Macedonia naming issue; and he registered his account specifically to agitate about the naming issue, having (so he says) participated as an IP editor before. His willingness to solicit meatpuppets and his utter lack of acceptance that what he did was disallowed indicates that he continues to pose a threat of disruption to the ongoing discussions. His "contribution" in this instance was to delete sourced statements, despite the discussion referees and Rlevse explicitly warning against that kind of behaviour (see here). He's exactly the kind of user we don't want to participate in Macedonia-related topics, whichever namespace they happen to be in. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SQRT5P1D2

ArbCom decided that I should be "topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR for one year.".

Quoting from the relevant section, "articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

Summarising, I was "topic banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages" as these "fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned".

According to Wikipedia, an "article is a page that has encyclopedic information on it" and articles "belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages"; this "does not include any pages in any of the specified namespaces that are used for particular purposes".

The centralised discussion does not fall under the prohibition. It's not an article, but a discussion about the naming of a term in the articles. It belongs to the Wikipedia (project) namespace, not the main (article) namespace. It isn't an "article talk page" by definition, as a discussion concerning terminology that will be used in multiple Wikipedia namespaces in the future.

Furthermore, my edit was completely justified, as there is not a single reliable verifiable source available to justify a verbal POV claim. I also contributed new data and helped towards a neutral tone in the presentation.

Concluding, while I abide by ArbCom's decision and Wikipedia's policies, I expect from users who did much worse than what is claimed that I did, but take part in the discussion, to contribute towards a positive environment. That means making NPOV edits and leave behind the battleground mentality that lead to remedies against them.

  • As a note to other parties, until now, there is no consensus among Arbitrators about this matter. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • At first glance, it seems clear that this is a violation of the topic ban. Please note and remember that when someone is banned from a topic, then there is no "list" of pages that cannot be edited: new articles, centralized discussion, AfD subpages, requests for comments, etc. are all off-limits when within the banned topic. — Coren (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    At this time, applying the topic ban restrictions to discussion about/within the topic that lie outside article space is appropriate and supported by the decision. I would recommend, given the confusion, that it not be applied retroactively however.

    For the record, a topic or article ban that explicitly includes associated talk page can generally be inferred to include other discussion about those articles that happen lie outside the article talk page proper but are clearly tied to the same topic or area of dispute. — Coren (talk) 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Topic bans come in two main varities: Those that prohibit an editor completely from a topic and those that permit an editor to participate in discussions. It may be necessary going forward to rephrase such bans in a way that makes it clear that a topic ban is a topic ban, especially in relation to the former. I will support a motion to clarify this breadth in topic bans if it is necessary. A topic ban is meaningless if an editor can simply fork discussion of the topic to another namespace. --Vassyana (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is mere wikilawyering by SQRT5P1D2. A topic ban is just that, a topic ban, not a ban in certain name spaces and not others, especially when talk pages are included in the ban. This part of the topic just happened to take place in the centralized discussion area and is about the naming dispute, which CLEARLY is part of the topic ban, towit, "whenever the dispute over naming is concerned". Also note the AE case was closed with a 24 hour block of SQRT5P1D2 by a totally uninvolved admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As per everyone else, it is clear that ongoing discussions about the articles was part of the topic ban. An amendment would be appropriate, but may be unnecessary if SQRT5P1D2 is willing to accept that the spirit of the topic ban is now clear. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As Vassyana explains, topic bans that do not allow talk page discussion means that the users can not join any discussion about the topic on any page. In emails exchanged between SQRT5P1D2 and the ArbCom mailing list, SQRT5P1D2 has been informed that the Committee declines to modify the ruling to allow increased participation in the topic. In my opinion, we have clarified the issue and no further amendment of the ruling is needed, but if others disagree, I can support wording that clarifies the point. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Concur with FloNight. I believe the matter has been clarified to SQRT5P1D2 already. Risker (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

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


Statement by Masem

As one of the current moderators on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to resolve the above, I have noticed behavior that I consider disruptive, and while per the second motion made here (sorry, I cannot find where these have been archived otherwise - the case wasn't amended to include them) gives me the ability to take action, I'd rather verify this first.

User Redking7 has been trying to start a discussion on Republic of Ireland (currently where information about the 26-county state is located), first started here, which expanded out to this much before text was removed. Ok, there's a bunch of crap happening here, but sticking to the point that ArbCom is involved, Redking's attempt to rename the ROI article at the time discussion was going on clearly (to me) is against the case's first motion from here (in that Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Now, I'm willing to give a benefit of a doubt to some degree: the above motion closed on June 12th, Redking7's suggestion opened on June 6th and it looks like it may have been spurred by that. However, Redking7 continues to argue over the details of this (see comments from this diff as well as discussion here.

I personally see this as rules-lawyering (the intent of what ArbCom wants seems perfectly clear), but rather than act first, ask questions later, I will assume good faith for now but seek ArbCom's clarification if discussion about the renaming of individual articles that are part of the Ireland naming issue can be discussed on those individual talk pages or should they be brought to the Ireland Collaboration project. --MASEM (t) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Redking7

BACKGROUND/FACTS: I have been told by other editors that “ArbCom” has made rules saying:

"Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process."

On the basis of the above, a discussion I started on Talk: Republic of Ireland concerning the title name was archived. I disputed the interpretation put on the above stating that the discussion I had started:

  1. did not concern the naming of "Ireland articles" - it concerned the naming of one article, the "RoI article" - which discussion was raised in the appropriate place, the talk page of the RoI article; and
  2. the above discussion in no way "disrupted" any discussion taking place on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration;

and on that basis discussion should be allowed to continue.

Notwithstanding the explanations I gave, Masem insists I have broked ArbCom rules and said he/she was giving me his/her “only warning”.


MISINTERPRETATION OF RULES: I believe Masem has misinterpreted the ArbCom rules (and others have indicated some support for me on this). Notably, Does ArbCom wish WP:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration to be used to censor article-specific discussion on article-specific talk pages? I would find that extraordinary because:

  1. it is a golden rule of Wikipedia that matters concerning an article (including its title) can (and should) be raised on the talk page of the article concerned - this is really important;
  2. WikiProject Ireland Collaboration relates to the naming of lots of articles - it is much easier to reach consensus on one article than it is on a whole range of articles - it would be bad for the community if progress on one article was linked to conensus being reached on a whole range of articles;
  3. there is no reason why WikiProject Ireland Collaboration cannot take place in tandem with article-specific discussions on their talk page - thats the best way to ensure progress is made and a "win win" is created for all of the community;
  4. on what basis can WikiProject Ireland Collaboration be used as a way of "censoring" discussions of article-specific title matters;
  5. many editors feel that WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is now being used as a way to supress the discussions which have taken place on "Ireland" articles for a long time - and simply "park" the ouststanding issues on one page visited by fewer and fewer editors (as the Project's credibility has ebbed away over the months);
  6. similarly, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration has been in place for quite some months now (its first three Moderators resigned); it has made no demonstrable progress; and has not set a deadline for when it will conclude (i.e. it could continue to run and run with no decisions around article titles (i.e. imposition of the status quo));
  7. such "censorship" type-restrictions would be fundamentally undemocratic and ultimately don't pass the Wiki "smell test" or whats right and wrong. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Some relevant recycling from a posting of mine on the Ireland Collaboration Talk Page: Is this process (the Collaboration Project) just a ruse to ruse to stop the "disruption" caused by the RoI/IRL dispute by pretending that a process is in place to resolve the conflicting viewpoints? I hope this is a genuine process that will lead to a prompt decision but it looks unlikely to me. In particular, the ground rules on the project page state "Decisions for the WikiProject will primarily be based on the consensus of members". Is some one seriously suggesting a consensus will emerge? If no consensus emerges, does that mean there will be no decision (or another decision to make no decision as before)? What reason is there to think a consensus will emerge when it has not done so before? Is there a timeframe for this process? How long will it run? What is the deadline? I think those running this process should answer these questions and set them out on the project page. Participants can then take a view on whether this is a credible process. After all, who runs a project without having a clear timeframe? It goes without saying, I hope the project is successful. It should have credibility. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Time, unfortunately, is proving my original scepticism right. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC). So too are your responses above - ignoring all my arguments about basic Wiki principles about "no censorship" and "basic fairness". Redking7 (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • To put it simply, when I voted on the measure, I was of the mind that it required centralized discussion for those naming issues.

    Elaborating further, a significant part of the problem in the area is the reptition of the same arguments, discussions, debates, and conflicts across numerous articles over the same small set of naming considerations, often used in a divide and conquer fashion. As a practical matter, it's much easier for an editor to follow one set of discussions than to follow discussions spread out across dozens of articles. The conflict was broad and spread out across a large span of articles, with many secondary effects of the battleground atmosphere and animosity. Many issues that are primary to the conflict, such as proper naming and neutral point of view conventions, are considerations of policies and guidelines (ranging from matters of interpretation to possible rules alterations). Resolution of these issues requires broader discussion and consensus. There is a requirement for a centralized place of discussion. However, no one is being censored. Anyone may engage in discussion there and express their opinion in a constructive fashion. --Vassyana (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with Vassyana. Having one location where the issues can be talked through is a large part of what needs to happen. Shifting the discussions to a more central location is appropriate for most of these naming discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Redking7, the moderators are directing discussion about the naming of Wiki pages to a page devoted to that topic - that is not censorship. The naming discussion needs to be structured this way because having individual discussions on each and every page is disruptive when the page names are all interdependent. The only stable consensus will be one which agrees on a name for all of the pages at the same time. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't but emphasize on what John V. has said - the only way forward is coordinated centralized discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Statement by SlimVirgin

I have a question about the use of checkuser in relation to Israel-Palestine articles. We've had several ArbCom cases triggered by these articles, the latest of which was settled a month ago with several topic bans. There was talk about how these could be enforced, and whether checkuser could be used more liberally than normal, but nothing came of it, so far as I know.

I'm therefore submitting this to ask that the ArbCom authorize checkusers to use the tool more liberally when it comes to these articles, and not to require a specific suspicion regarding who might be behind the checked accounts.

We have a number of accounts hanging around— some new, some set up before the ArbCom case but not used much—who are arriving to thwart normal editing in various ways. One of them, User:Hadashot Livkarim (talk · contribs), was recently found to belong to NoCal100 (talk · contribs), who had been topic-banned during the recent case. Under the current rules, it is difficult to get a CU done unless we already think we know who the account belongs to. I have just requested a CU on LuvGoldStar (talk · contribs), an obvious sock or meatpuppet, and was told by a clerk that it would violate the "no-fishing" rule: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuvGoldStar. But I have no idea who's behind it, and it really doesn't matter. If we can't act against an account like that, then we're basically powerless to stop the kind of highly partisan editing the latest ArbCom case acted against. Editors on the I/P pages shouldn't be expected to spend hours or days analysing edits to come up with a suspicion to justify a CU, when it's obvious at a glance that the account isn't a legitimate one.

Two things would help enormously: (1) if checkusers could be told the normal "no fishing" policy is eased when it comes to I/P articles, and (2) if admins could be reminded that checkuser and other evidence isn't always necessary: that if a new account, or an account with very few edits, is acting in a highly partisan manner on the I/P pages, admins may consider blocking it under the reasonable suspicion that it's a topic-banned editor returned, or an account acting as a meatpuppet. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana

Vassyana, thank you for your response. Speaking for myself, I can only say that this is a distress signal (and I speak only of the I/P pages, though I suspect this also applies to the other nationalist disputes Chris has mentioned). Since the I/P (Samaria/Judea) case closed, we have watched as apparent sockpuppets spring up here and there—usually not new accounts, but old ones not used that often— and there's nothing we can do about it. They may be connected to banned editors, they may not be, but we're not allowed to find out by requesting a CU, unless we have a reasonable suspicion as to who is behind the account, which usually we don't. It's worth mentioning that, so far, the accounts in question are all pro-Israeli (or what they think is pro-Israeli).
It goes beyond simple POV pushing, which you have to expect, because everyone has a POV, and everyone thinks they're right to some extent. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about single-minded people who only ever edit from one strong and narrow POV, who would never dream of doing anything else, and who show no respect for NPOV at all. They are here as advocates for Israel.
What I'm asking is that the ArbCom work with the regular editors on this issue, and help get rid of the drive-bys and the socks. Two things would help:
  • First, lifting the "no fishing" rule just a little, not to the point where the Foundation would need to be involved necessarily. I'm talking only about relaxing "no fishing" so that we don't have to guess who's operating the account before we can request one, not doing totally random checks. We would still need to show that the account had behaved suspiciously.
  • Secondly, advice to admins to be more aggressive in topic-banning accounts with very few edits who conveniently turn up to revert or add support for a position. A statement such as, "The Committee hereby invites administrators to pay special attention to new accounts, or old accounts with few recent contributions, who arrive to focus on specific positions at the Israel-Palestine pages, and to have no hesitation in topic-banning them." That one sentence would make a huge difference.
The IP articles are in a mess. Specifically, material offering the Palestinian perspective is not being fairly represented. It is left out entirely, or it is added in a mealy-mouthed fashion so that the sense of it gets lost. I say this as someone who is not known as a pro-Palestinian editor—far from it, so I'm not simply trying to make things easier for "my POV." I'm genuinely interested in finding a way to enforce the real meaning of NPOV, which is the representation of all majority and significant-minority POVs in reliable sources (preferably historians in this area), even the POVs that make certain editors uncomfortable. NPOV does not mean that everything on Wikipedia must be acceptable to right-wing Israelis. I'm sorry if that's an inappropriate way to put it, but it's the bottom line. There are a small number of editors on the I/P articles who just want to be allowed to write articles, using scholarly sources, in whatever direction those sources take us. But we need help from the ArbCom. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by IronDuke

I don't see this as being particularly useful, aside from it violating WP:AGF andWP:BITE. You will, at best, generate a more sophisticated generation of socks. Why not use the ARBPIA sanction process already in place? Indeed, I wonder why it wasn't used on the editors involved in the Judea Samaria case -- much needless waste of talent on both sides would have been avoided, as well as the apparently very great temptation to sock. IronDuke 02:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisO

I'm interested in this proposal primarily because of its applicability to two cases in which I was involved, in which sock- or meatpuppetry was a significant issue - Scientology and Macedonia. Sockpuppetry was one of the main issues in the Scientology case and led directly to the IP ban of editors from Church of Scientology networks. In the Macedonia case, there was clear evidence of editors seeking to recruit meatpuppets off-wiki. In both cases, a number of long-term partisan editors were topic-banned or given lengthy blocks. There is a high likelihood of further sockpuppeting in both cases. SlimVirgin's proposal would be a useful way of dealing with this eventuality. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

Checkuser may be used to investigate and prevent disruption, broadly construed. The response that Checkuser is not for fishing is not part of checkuser policy, rather, it is a filter, used at WP:RFCU to discourage particular kinds of user-requested checks ("User:Smith is bugging me and I want to know if he is a sock of someone" kind of thing). It is also often the case that checkuser will not result in a clear finding without a suspect in mind, particularly with certain dynamic ISPs. With a suspect we can sometimes at least say "possible--same ISP, same geographic area" and let other admins review the contributions. "Fishing" cases are sometimes accepted, and may also be self-initiated, as long as the element of "investigate and prevent disruption" is satisfied. Where I would become concerned is where a checkuser is also a partisan editor on the topic or article in question; "involved" checkusers should seek a second hand to carry out checkuser investigations just as involved admins should seek assistance in carrying out administrative tasks. Barring "involvement", there is no reason that checkusers can not be more aggressive in patrolling disputed articles and topics, especially when subject to Arbitration remedies, provided the purpose is to investigate and prevent disruption. Thatcher 02:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MastCell

As a tangential notice, I've closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LuvGoldStar by indefinitely blocking LuvGoldStar (talk · contribs) on the basis of behavioral evidence that I consider compelling. I don't have anything of substance to add to the comments above, though I would welcome further brainstorming on how best to deal with problem editing on the topics in question, as well as any guidance for administrators who patrol the area. MastCell Talk 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Nathan

One thing to keep in mind is that a CU on this account had already been performed prior to the filing of the SPI case. As the clerk who declined the RFCU request, the no-fishing problem wasn't the main issue - without comparing LuvGoldStar to specific other accounts, a new CU check was unlikely to result in new evidence.

I don't think it unreasonable to allow checkusers some latitude in checking suspicious accounts in very controversial areas; that latitude was used in this case, but it appears checkuser evidence was simply not sufficient to come to a conclusion. That happens, particularly with committed and experienced trolls. An administrator appropriately weighed the behavioral evidence and made a decision - I'm not sure what other outcome was possible. Perhaps the best use of this clarification request is to communicate that the first CU was acceptable under the circumstances, and thus encourage other checkusers to take similar steps when appropriate. Nathan T 22:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Could the clerks or the commenting editors please invite a few of the administrators that commonly work at ANI and arbitration enforcement to comment on this request? I'm interested in hearing the views of more admins that work in the trenches before coming to a conclusion. I also want to hear what commenting editors specifically want ArbCom to do in this circumstance. A sock- and meat-puppet enforcement provision? An encouragement to use exisitng process? Something else? Please bear in mind while considering this that CheckUser is bound to a some degree by Foundation and Meta policy. Also note that while ArbCom may clarify policy and principles (and institute enforcement provisions), refashioning them would require a community or Foundation motion that is outside the remit of Arbcom (except perhaps by way of encouraging discussion or resolution on the issue). I am also of the mind to think that to a large degree, many of the issues uncovered and/or highlighted by arbitration cases must be resolved by the community if it requires a significant revision, addition, or other alteration to standing policy and principles. --Vassyana (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Awaiting comments from other arbitrators. I would also appreciate it if admins working in enforcement could comment on SlimVirgin's thoughtful comments in response to me. --Vassyana (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the issue is as one narrows down the scope, when does 'fishing' become proper detective work of a number of suspects. It has been a vexed area and a number of editors topic-banned. We now have an audit subcommittee looking at tool usage and comments from Thatcher here would be appreciated. My feeling is veering towards condoning use of the tools but I do agree that open discussion and consensus-forming is prudent.Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not a clarification request. If we need to augment this case or any other, please raise suggestions at Amendments. However I would want a lot of evidence that this area is especially more sock-prone than all the other hot spots. Development of the checkuser policy to better deal with all these hot spots should be undertaken by the community in the usual manner, such as Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for amendment

Use this section:
  • To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems.
  • To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly)

How to file a request (please use this format!):

  1. Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page.
  2. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests.
  3. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~.
  4. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification.

This is not a page for discussion.

  • It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts.
  • Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment:
    1. The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header),
    2. The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision,
    3. The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and
    4. A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words.
  • Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee.
  • Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (4)

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

Statement by Colonies Chris

Firstly, I acknowledge my lack of wisdom in becoming embroiled (along with many others) in a battle with one specific editor (User:Tennis expert. I accept entirely that however troublesome the editor, this was the wrong way to handle the dispute, and I apologise for my actions. However, it is a long way from this one incident to the unjustifiable FoF that I "extensively edit warred"; I have not been involved in any dispute except in this specific incident. And the restriction placed on me is entirely unnecessary - I have been a gnoming editor for more than four years, with over 70,000 edits. I have no record of conflict before this occasion nor subsequently, nor with any other editor.

Secondly, in the course of this case, my edits were three times brought to admins' attention as possible breaches of the mass delinking injunction. Twice an admin agreed, once an admin disagreed that I was in violation, despite all the edits being of the same nature - delinking in the course of other gnoming edits. The original statement by Arb John Vandenberg, and recent clarifications by other Arbs, must surely have established that my actions were definitely not in violation of the injunction. I have asked for specific clarification on the case's talk page, but none has been forthcoming. I have to conclude that the Arbs are staying silent because they are neither willing to endorse these blocks nor to admit they were inappropriate. (And I'd like to point out that none of these delinkings have proved controversial - not a single one of them has been relinked or even questioned).

Thirdly, I want to endorse Kotniski's comments below about User:HJensen and User:John, two valuable editors who were only ever on the outermost periphery of this dispute and who have been driven away by their unjust treatment in this case. Their cases should be reviewed immediately to remedy the injustice done to them. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

First of all, waving around terms of abuse like 'tag-team edit warring' is not helpful or relevant – that phrase describes a situation when a group of editors gang up to push their POV on a controversial topic (such as Scientology or Ireland, for example). This is not that sort of case. The community's view on date links has been clearly expressed in multiple RFCs. It's not a POV issue.

Secondly, the community has repeatedly expressed the view that the vast majority of date links are valueless and the current unlinking RFC looks to be heading for an overwhelming vote of support for automated delinking, without human oversight of the type Vassyana deems so important. The community understands that (a) most date links were made as a side effect of date autoformatting, not as a deliberate decision to create a link, and (b) there is no obvious way for any editor, human or bot, to tell whether an earlier editor linked a particular date for a non-autoformatting reason, so arguing about the value of human oversight is pretty pointless. It is quite wrong of you to misrepresent those observations as a wanton disregard for the value of human oversight.

Reply to Vassyana (2)

Please provide diffs for your assertion that I expressed a position "dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests". Colonies Chris (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana (3)

I am astounded and baffled that these diffs are being claimed as evidence of a position "dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests". As I've already pointed out, most date links were made without human oversight, as a part of routinely linking dates for autoformatting, or by imitation, and no-one has suggested any means to distinguish them from links made with deliberate intention. Stating this is not dismissing the value of human oversight, it's a simple recognition that we can't read the minds of previous editors (there is almost never any discussion about such links on the article's talk page). And the growing community support for the proposed bot to unlink all autoformatted dates confirms that the community shares this view. Do you propose to sanction on the same grounds all the people who !vote 'Support' for the bot? And it's ridiculous to characterise my annoyance at Tennis expert's continual gaming the system to maintain his iron grip over the tennis articles (751 reverts, remember, claiming a 'local consensus' that was supported by no other editor and actively opposed by several regular tennis editors) as 'dismissive of concerns'. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg / Newyorkbrad

John Vandenberg has clearly looked very closely at edit histories to discover eight articles where I made one unlinking edit seven months ago. I find it interesting that while claiming these edits as evidence of "extensive edit warring", he has somehow overlooked the five relinkings made in that period by User:Lumos3 to Karl Popper, the seven relinkings made by the same user to Andrea Villarreal, the five relinking edits he made to Rudolf Steiner, the six relinkings to Gabriel Fauré, the four relinkings to William Cobbett, the five relinkings to Angéle de la Barthe, the seven relinkings to Josephine Kablick and the three relinkings to Carol Gould; and he also fails to mention the non-date-related improvements that I made to most of those articles. John Vandenberg has been very keen to chase down and punish everyone who has done any delinking, condemning and driving away valuable editors such as User:HJensen and User:John, but serial relinkers escape his censure even when they're right under his nose. This doesn't look like evenhanded justice to me.

And finally, I'll reiterate the point that sanctions are supposed to be for the protection of Wikipedia, not a punishment. Does any Arb really believe that if I were unrestrained I would be out there edit warring all over the place? I agree with Coren that the restriction is not onerous, but neither is it necessary. The whole issue is about to be put to bed by a bot (to the clearly expressed relief of many of the !voters in the RFC), and once again I'll point out that I have no record of any conflict whatever on any other subject. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (2)

You noted the existence of Lumos3's seven reverts to Karl Popper here on 11 May. It is not credible that you 'did not have time' to add that user to the case. This was and is clearly a one-sided witch hunt against unlinkers on your part. It was Lumos3's judgment that some of the links were useful. It was my judgment, and the judgment of many other editors, that none were. You have decided that that judgment is not acceptable because it doesn't conform to your prejudices. Your statement above that 'it is incredibly difficult to find cases of edit warring by the delinkers' betrays that - clearly you have only been looking for cases of edit warring by delinkers and not by re-linkers. (And please note, the summaries of the unlinking edits, as you have yourself stated only two paragraphs above, also mentioned the MoS, with which all unlinking edits were in conformance.) Colonies Chris (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (3)

Your claim that the unlinkings were not discussed is false. There was a lengthy discussion with User:Lumos3 on his talk page here. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Vandenberg (4)

I suggest you reread that discussion yourself. It started off couched in general MoS terms, and then moved on to discussing specific dates in that article. Here are three clips illustrating: the start of the discussion, in general terms: a later specific question (which was only answered in general terms): and another later intervention pointing that out.

Hey Lumos3, I noticed that you've been date linking years on articles. This form of linking is strongly discouraged, per WP:OVERLINK#Dates, as is the old 1 January 2000 style links, per MOS:UNLINKDATES. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you specifically say how the articles at 17 April and at 1622 enhance the reader's understanding of Richard Hawkins? Can you provide evidence that this is the case, or is it just your own opinion? Failing that, per WP:CONTEXT, these should not be linked. This benefits Wikipedia by focusing the reader's attention on links which actually go somewhere useful, as described in the guideline I already linked you to. If you are unable to properly answer the questions above, I think you should undo your edit, unless of course you were doing it just to make a WP:POINT, which I'm sure isn't true. --John (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John. Lumos3, your recent edit summaries are saying "Wikipedia's policy is to link significant dates. Birth and death in a biography are significant". That is not what WP's policy says at all. It says: "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". If knowing what other events also happened in the year or on the date the subject was born or died is necessary to deepen readers' understanding of the subject, then those events should be, and usually are, discussed in the article itself. Those who are interested merely in "On This Day"-type information can get it independently. This is the only rationale you've provided for linking vital dates, and it does not demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic. I suggest you need to refrain from re-linking dates that have been de-linked, unless, in any particular case, you can find a better reason than the "On This Day" argument. Such an argument would apply only to the subject at hand, and not as a blanket argument to link all vital dates in all articles. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And please note also that the initial objection to Lumos3's relinkings did not originate from any of the delinkers who have been in the dock in the current case, and the objection was supported by a second editor unconnected to that group. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

I am going to recuse on these date delinking amendment requests, however I do want to make sure that appeals don't ignore the evidence provided on the FoF, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Karl_Popper, where Colonies Chris enters an existing edit-war that has nothing to do with Tennis expert.[48]

There were eight sequential edits like that. Here is another one of those eight in context.

John Vandenberg (chat) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

fwiw, it is incredibly difficult to find cases of edit warring by the delinkers, because they used the very helpful "script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink" when reverting. Every time I go looking for more edit-warring, I find more.

Of course it would be helpful if the parties actually mentioned the edit-wars they were involved in. Nobody bothered to mention Lumos3 in the evidence, or workshop. Doing that would have resulting in their own edit warring being more visible. As a result, I included the edit wars with Lumos3 to demonstrate that there was tag-teaming edit warring between the main parties involved in this case, outside of the tennis articles.

I have since found more evidence that Lumos3 did edit-war extensively, and I do wish I had time to add that user as a party.[49]

However it should be noted that Lumos3 was not relinking everything, or doing blind reverts. Lumos3 considered some dates to be significant, and linked those, and cited the MOS in the edit summary. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Kotniski, you appear to be attacking the messenger. I was just trying to do my job well, and sure didn't enjoy it, nor was I seeking any outcome. I spent the time investigating this case in order to understand the problem, as it developed, because the picture that was being given by both parties was extremely unhelpful in doing that. Accurate findings of fact that would otherwise be missed are now on the record as a summary of what caused this mess, and hopefully prevent it happening in other similar style debates. The remedies flow from those findings. I did not support many of the stronger remedies, so you have the wrong guy to label as the person seeking to "punish" anyone. p.s. we have project pages that describe tag-team edit warring. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris, my evidence (started on May 8, after the draft PD was posted on April 30) was added in order to add more background to the tennis wars. After the draft was posted, there were many unfounded allegations that I had a COI and should recuse, to the tune of 1 million dollars by Tony1, which significantly affected my ability to follow up all interesting edits and investigate everyone. Here are two of the times that Tony1 put the case on hold on specious grounds and without being forthcoming about the evidence he allegedly had, or obtaining a second opinion before making a scene about it: 1, 2.

I primarily investigated people who were already parties, and predominately those involved in the tennis wars. While doing that, I found a two or three non-tennis skirmishes. which were examples of tag team edit warring. The one you were involved in was Karl Popper.

In that dispute, Luoms3 partially reverted, relinking only dates which he believed were compliant with the MOS at that time, because he considered them to be significant. You might consider them insignificant, and remove them, but you did not discuss them, and didnt even use the edit summary to indicate your position. WP:BRD didn't happen here. Instead we see someone else arrive and delink them again, with the same bland edit summary. 10 times this happens on Karl Popper. And this happened time after time on the articles where someone believed a date was significant enough to be linked. If you and others had entered into discussions about the significance of the relinked dates, you probably would have won hearts and minds. Edit warring doesn't win hearts and minds; it does not build consensus for a change of the status quo.

Also note that I added user:G-Man as a party at the same time I added user:John, due to the Clement Attlee situation which I added into evidence. I did look into that users contributions, and in light of this perhaps you could revise your "one-sided witch hunt against unlinkers" claim.

I didn't add Lumos3 as a party, as I didnt see significant involvement at the time, because I didn't look into that users contributions. Since that time, John asked me to dig deeper into his involvement, and so it is from his contributions that I became more aware of the involvement of Lumos3. And now looking at your appeal, and by reviewing your contributions, I see Lumos3 again.

There were also date delinkers whose contributions I didn't have time to look into.

The parties who were delinking dates have been the people appealing, and requesting a deeper investigation into their involvement in this dispute. I am explaining that looking for skirmishes in the date delinkers contributions it is made incredibly difficult due to the edit summary "script-assisted date/terms audit; see mosnum, wp:overlink" being used when it should actually be "revert". These reverts are difficult to find because they are in among the thousands of other edits which were not reverts, but also had the same summary. Where the date linkers were involved in disputes, their edit summary makes it very clear that they are reverting, so I have not had the same difficulty. Hence I am complaining about the delinkers edit summaries and not the linkers edit summaries - this doesn't support your theory that I have only been looking at the contributions of one side of the dispute. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris, that discussion is mentioned in the evidence section Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Karl_Popper. It is a general discussion, among all the other general discussions being had at that time, such as the RFCs. Please read the general discussion you point to. There is no discussion about the specific links you were edit-warring to remove, citing MOS - no attempt to find a consensus or compromise. This was a reasonably gray area in the MOS at the time, and the RFCs were trying to help clarify that gray area. And yet while those discussions were occurring, you and others were edit warring to enforce the most strict reading of the MOS, and that uncompromising approach is what brought this mess to Arbcom.

Do you feel that your edits were justified? If so, please cite the policy, guideline and/or discussion that underpins your justification, and please link to a version of the page at the time of your edits. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

I find it disturbing that JV some Arbs apparently view these sanctions as punishment rather than prevention (he will correct me if I've misunderstood, but I can see no other motive for raking over month-old edit histories in a now settled dispute). If we are going to have a penal system on WP (and I hope we're not), then we ought to have at least two basic things (which we should have anyway, for whatever system of sanctions we use): (1) clear and rational rules (e.g. what is "tag-team edit warring"? how else is consensus to be enforced unless people are allowed to revert those who ignore it?); (2) an independent second instance for appeals (which we don't have if ArbCom allows itself to be a court of first instance as it did in this case). On several occasions I've suggested how we might improve the system to prevent this kind of out-of-control mess - I seem to have been ignored. But ArbCom could be really useful if it analysed properly what went wrong and what needs fixing for the future (after all, every ArbCom case represents a failure of the system), instead of concentrating on individuals' past misjudgments and effectively making them scapegoats for the system's imperfections. --Kotniski (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To JV - OK, I withdraw any implication that you are the one seeking punishment, but I still think the analysis should have gone one step back - the problem we need to solve for the future is not that "X has edit warred", "Y has been uncivil", but that "people edit war", "people are uncivil", "admins are not effective at stopping edit warring and incivility when it happens." Why is this? Lack of information or clear rules? Perception that there is no alternative? ...? ...? Imposing sanctions on X and Y are no remedy to these problems (and might well do incidental harm to the project) - talking to X and Y and various other Zs (i.e. the thing you're always telling us to do) might lead us forward.
That's all from me on this page for at least a week - I hope my points will finally be listened to and that some good can come out of this terrible mess (and please get User:John back if you can - his treatment was way off the scale).--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

Please read what I wrote above - you don't seem to have taken account of it in your latest statement. Firstly, the concern should be not "prior misconduct", but to prevent future disruption. Secondly, it's wrong to cite a list of exceptions to 3RR as if it were a list of exceptions to edit-warring. There is no definition as to where edit-warring begins besides 3RR - it's a question of judgement. If you haven't broken 3RR, then you quite likely haven't edit-warred (or maybe you have - but that can't possibly be an exhaustive list of exceptions, otherwise we wouldn't have 3RR but some other RR). What would be helpful would be not pointless sanctions for particular incidents months ago (even vandals don't get that treatment), but analysis, dialogue, proposals, concrete advice on how to solve this perennial and far from straightforward problem. --Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note by Nathan

A few short points.

  • The idea that a decision should not be revisited because its terms are not onerous on those affected has already been discarded by the Committee, most recently in the case of Shoemaker's Holiday.
  • It's been said at arbitration hundreds of times, and while it is often discarded by arbitrators, it is nonetheless true that being the subject of even a non-onerous ArbCom remedy is akin to a scarlet letter. If there are errors in those remedies, or credible allegations of such errors, arbitrators should not discard a re-examination out of hand.
  • I find it strange to suggest that parties should prove prior remedies asserting poor behavior were in error by demonstrating future good behavior. The facts upon which findings and remedies were previously made are static in history; John and Colonies Chris and others aren't pleading guilty and asking for a reprieve, they are claiming that their actions never warranted remedy. Nathan T 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I am not inclined to revist this, especially in light of the presentation of this request. There was significant participation in tag-team edit warring, much of which had nothing to do with Tennis expert. Additionally, discussion participation shows that Colonies Chris took a hard position with an awareness of dissent, supporting full date delinking while rejecting huamn oversight or discretion over (semi-)automated delinking tools (as an example). To blame this broader participation and rejection of common expectations for scripts and bots on a limited conflict with one editor is simply not in accord with the picture provided by the evidence. --Vassyana (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Our principles on edit-warring only make exceptions for limited and obvious cases (BLP enforcement, copyvios, vandalism, banned users, etc). Even then, they encourage caution and note that even those exceptions may sometimes be seen as controversial or even as edit warring (see here). There was participation in group edit warring. A clear (and hardline) position dismissive of concerns and standard oversight requests was expressed. At the time of the reverts, there were quite a number of complaints, dissent, and reasonable requests for accomodation that were not simply from small group of troublemakers (as some would like to portray). The recent bot RfC is a false comparison, as it is purposefully focused and limited. The delinking taking place previously was much broader than the purely full date/autoformatting focus of the new bot. I will note that I am glad that the community is moving towards resolution on the various aspects of date delinking, but that movement should not be misappropriated and misrepresented to excuse prior misconduct. --Vassyana (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In brief response to Colonies Chris, a couple of examples illustrating my point:[50][51][52] --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to Kotniski, this isn't about being punitive. I am basing my responses and opinions on what I perceive as previous trends and the likelihoods going forward. You may note that I oppose a restriction on HJensen and support a restriction that does not prohibit you from discussion. In the case of this editor, I see a variety of issues that prevent me from comfortably loosening the restriction. To boil it down: I see an editor that took a strong position in a dispute, who edit-warred to advance that position and refused to acknowledge the problematic nature of the conduct despite it being clearly explained. The way he held his position, and his comments elaborating upon it, lead me to believe that the conduct is likely to repeat in the same general area. His comments and responses indicated to me that he is dismissive of feedback, both from dissenting views and from administrators (the latter reinforcing my preceding concern). Thus, I am left with a situation where I feel there is a strong possibility of further misconduct with very little possibility that he will heed feedback. I hope this better explains my view of the situation. --Vassyana (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've already bloated this quite enough and we're starting to go around in circles, so this will likely be my last reply (barring some significant new point being raised). There's no need to mindread or evaluate intentions in reviewing the suitability of links. As a basic and relevant example, one should be able to distinguish between full date autoformatting links and Year in X links. The assertion that there is no possible way to use human discretion when examining potential overlinking, including date links, is unconvincing. The recent bot RfC is not a valid comparison, as its scope is limited, while previous delinking was much broader. Additionally, comparing orderly consensus building to edit warring with a dismissive attitude towards reasonable concerns is misguided, at best. This attitude was not limited to Tennis expert and neither was the participation in revert warring. --Vassyana (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have a preliminary view on this request (like several of the others that have been made arising from this case), but I'd like to ask Colonies Chris to respond to John Vandenberg's observation before I comment further. I think I know what his response is likely to be, but I want to be sure. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Consistent with my views on other appeals arising from this case, I think our sanction here was too broad and would vacate or modify it. I am not sure precisely how far I would go in scaling back the restriction, or whether I would lift it entirely, but will look into the matter in more detail if other arbitrators express any agreement with my position (failing which the issue is pretty much moot). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No action needed by the Committee at this time largely do to the reasons stated by Vassyana and Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior action: Everyking desysopping

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

Statement by Everyking

I ask the ArbCom to review its September 2006 decision to remove my adminship. Should that removal be viewed as permanent, or is it reasonable to think that adminship should be restored under certain conditions after the passage of time? On four occasions since then I have been nominated for RfA, and on the last two of those occasions I received roughly two-thirds of the vote, narrowly falling short of the generally accepted minimum; on one of those occasions (August 2008), members of the ArbCom mailing list prominently opposed my candidacy, and on the other occasion (May 2009) the nomination was seriously disrupted by a campaign against me, in which my views and actions were gravely misrepresented. I ask the ArbCom to consider all aspects of the situation to determine whether it would be appropriate to restore my adminship. Everyking (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to the arbitrators, I don't have a lot of ideas, but I would suggest that my adminship could be restored provisionally and that I could go before RfA again after a few weeks or months. Last time, for example, there were concerns that I might go around closing AfDs despite my pledge not to do so. I felt that was an unfair objection, but if I had a provisional period in which to demonstrate that I would do nothing but routine and uncontroversial work, I think people would be less likely to object based on things they suspected I might do as an administrator. Possibly someone can think of another solution that might suit the situation better. Everyking (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

John's suggestion is quite reasonable and agreeable, although I would prefer not to have an arrangement that required me to ever evaluate consensus. I don't like to evaluate consensus, I haven't done it in the past, and I don't want to do it in the future. I only want adminship to perform routine and uncontroversial maintenance tasks, such as dealing with simple vandalism. It would be useless to have me evaluate consensus during my provisional adminship as some kind of test, because I would never do so again if I passed RfA and thus the whole exercise would be pointless. Everyking (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Responding to John: I'm not capable of putting my preferred method aside—that's why I don't want to perform any closes. I could be placed in a position where the politically acceptable option and the personally acceptable option would be in conflict, so I choose to simply avoid all such matters as long as admin discretion continues to dominate Wikipedia decision-making. If the ArbCom wanted me to have a temporary mentor, I'd accept that, although I doubt it would be much of a relationship—I have lots of experience fighting vandalism, so there would be no point to mentoring me there, and I have no intention of getting involved in other areas. Everyking (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone privately suggested the following to me, and I think it's a good idea: the ArbCom could impose a restriction on my adminship barring me from ever closing any discussions or evaluating consensus, with the penalty that my adminship would be revoked if I did so. This would surely alleviate the concerns expressed in my last RfA—that I would get through RfA and then break my promise to never close discussions, because there'd be no way to stop me from doing so. If that concern had not been an issue in my last RfA, it would almost certainly have passed, so I think such a restriction would be politically helpful to me, either as part of a provisional adminship or as something that would be applied in the future, if I ever succeed in passing RfA. Everyking (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Risker: I want to do some anti-vandalism work with the block, semi-protect, and delete buttons. Occasionally I would move an article over a redirect if appropriate. I don't envision doing much if anything else, and certainly I would not be closing discussions, blocking established contributors, or doing anything remotely controversial. Everyking (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by hbdragon88

There is precedent for restoring of sysop tools. Carnildo was de-sysopped by the ArbCom during the Pedophilia userbox wheel war case. I do not know if he ever appealed to ArbCom, but he underwent an RFA that closed at 62%. The b'crats promoted him on the belief that the ArbCom de-sysopping was meant to be a temporary measure (although nothing in the PUWW case indicated as such) and reinstated his adminship on a probationary period (see Giano case), with ArbCom reviewing after two months. Again, I do not know what happened when two months were up, but he's still an admin, so he didn't do anything to cause the ArbCom to revoke his tools. If the ArbCom sees fit to do so it could apply the same to Everyking - two months and then RFA or review. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xeno

In their decision, the committee should speak to the concern that doing administrative work for any length of time often creates situations that can lead to "borderline" RFAs after an ArbCom desysopping. The waters can become muddy. I'm sure it is tough for bureaucrats to utilize their discretion and promote in situations like this. Something like Hbdragon88 or Everyking5 suggested above might help.

Comment by Mackensen

Inasmuch as any de-sysopping by Arbcom poisons the well, Everyking's failed RfAs don't amount to much. That which Arbcom summarily takes away it may summarily restore. The conditions which caused the de-sysopping are no longer operative, and repeated arbitration cases found no fault with his usage of the tools; certainly nothing which merited their removal. The strictures which Everyking suggests are reasonable and on his part generous and should be met with a similar spirit of generosity. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Balloonman

There is a difference between Everyking and Coffee above. I struggled on Everyking's last RfA before eventually supporting. That being said, Everyking has gone before the community on four separate occasions and not regained the bit. While Coffee can come before the committee and if the committee refuses to grant the bit back, can then run for RfA, I do not believe the reverse is true. The Committee should reflect the views of the community. If the committe acts incorrectly, the appeal to the committee's actions are to the community---not the other way around. In this case, while I may not agree with the way things turned out for Everyking, I think the community has clearly spoken (on 4 occassions).---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) NOTE: I think Everyking is a good example of why going to the committee first is a good thing. In theory, the committee should be willing and able to weigh all the facts of the case, whereas at an RfA you are more likely to run into emotions or a partial understanding of the facts dictating the results.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal While I am adamant that 14 members of ArbCOM should not override the clear consensus of 4 RfAs, I would not be opposed to a carefully worded statement from ArbCOM stating that Everyking has been a benefit to the community and been productive. That he has ArbCOM's blessing to run for adminship via RfA should he choose to do so. This will allow the community to have the ultimate say while alleviating the stigma he suffers from being under an ArbCOM ban. That being said, such wording would have to be carefully worded as not to be an endorsement of resysopping... it would have to be neutral in tone.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari

I think the conditions Everyking mentioned above regarding his resysopping are very fair, especially the one with him agreeing to be placed under a self-ban from consensus-deciding actions with an ArbCom-enforced desysopping should he break the ban. If it weren't for disagreement over Everyking's opinion on consensus in the last RfA, he would have passed, despite the participation of grudge-voters, and I think that Everyking's "self-sanction" of being desysopped if he ever started closings AfDs, discussions, etc. should easily cover that opposition, and while I personally think that the added clause of and RfA six months/a year after resysopping is overkill, it only adds to Everyking's reasonableness in this matter. With Everyking being resysopped now and placed under an ArbCom-enforced self-ban, anyone who opposed last time around on the consensus-issue would have no reason to oppose next time around, but they would have the bonus of being able to review recent admin actions from Everyking and base their decision on that instead. Even without a self-ban, I trust Everyking when he says that regarding a resysopping, he would continue the admin work he did as an administrator previously: I've yet to see anything that Everyking has ever said to turn out to be a lie.

In addition, I'm expecting to be told something along the lines of "determining consensus is a necessity for administrators". I can assure anyone that it's not: in my now two years of being an administrator, the (very, very few) XfDs I've ever closed were snowball deletes/keeps, their outcomes didn't need to be determined, and I didn't even need to close those XfDs anyway: editing articles and using the tools against vandals has been more fun, relaxing, and worthwhile. In fact, I expect Everyking's use of the tools to be somewhat like how I use them: primarily for for dealing with vandals (though I also handle rollback requests, however I don't think Everyking wanted to participate in that either, and most admins don't anyway). In short, Everyking can still have plenty of things to do as an administrator without ever need to make consensus-based decisions or close consensus-based discussions.

Thank you. Acalamari 02:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Awaiting statements. Everyking, please provide any links that might be useful to newer arbitrators in evaluating your request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I recused in the last request Everyking made to the Committee in an attempt to ease his worries that sitting arbitration members are campaigning to keep him from regaining his tools or otherwise make on wiki life difficult. As well, I made my views known at his last RFA. So this time, again, recuse. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Speaking generally, and not to this specific case, the 'crats understand that they can use discretion when closing RFAs and do. Up til now, probationary or restrictive adminships have not been supported by the Community. I think that any adaption of RFA and Adminship needs to be ironed out between the 'crats and the Community because ArbCom does not write policy. If there is a dispute about it later, then ArbCom could assist in settling it. But I don't think that we should skip that step. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • On principle, I believe it would be inappropriate to grant adminship to an editor by fiat absent a specific provision to do so in advance. In the face of your failed RfAs, such an action would explicitly be against community consensus and would (rightly) cause a great deal of drama and protestation at the unprecedented expansion of ArbCom powers. The principle that the community decides who gets specific tools is fundamental, and should not be dismissed because they did not give the results one hoped for.

    On the other hand, I understand your concerns that your prior RfAs may have been a poor reflection of community consensus because of external factors. I'm open to suggestions on how to better gauge the consensus of the community given the circumstances. — Coren (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

    I would be receptive to the idea that the bureaucrats may be encouraged to have somewhat wider latitude than usual, and that they can recommend a return of the tool be subject to conditions (including a possible review at the end of a probationnary period). This being a rather innovative proposal, however, (despite the unusual precedent), some reasonable community support would nevertheless be required for the process itself. I do think this bears further discussion. — Coren (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For the moment, waiting in agreement Newyorkbrad's statement and Coren's closing comments. --Vassyana (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Noting that I am open to John's suggestion below. --Vassyana (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As per Coren, I feel very uncomfortable (in essence) explicitly overturning two failed RfAs to regrant adminship. As a supporter I strongly sympathise with EK's plight, but I don't think this is the right way of addressing this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I cannot personally support the restoration of sysop rights by ArbCom after the community has twice hovered on the borderline. However, if this editor reflects on and addresses the major contentious issues (Question 5 in his last RfA, for instance), his next RfA would probably go much better.  Roger Davies talk 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm a crat and an arb. Wearing either or both hats, I can not in good conscience resyssop somone who has the RFA failure record of Everyking. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A resysop on the condition that you do not close any "consensus" based decisions on your own, followed by a reconfirmation RfA, sounds like a possible way forward. If you can find another admin who will mentor you, and you both will actively undertake in performing closes on some "consensus" based decisions, then the community should be able to evaluate whether they want you to continue doing sysop duties. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    Everyking - I would prefer that you went out of your want to do some consensus based decisions prior to your reconfirmation RfA in order that you demonstrate that you are capable of putting your preferred method (counting) aside and use the tools in the expected manner. I can see why you wouldnt want to do this, and wont require it, but you and a mentor need to work out a mentorship plan so that we can review it. This amendment request should probably be declined at this time, and you probably should circulate your draft plan around before opening a new amendment request. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - on the one hand, Everyking has failed RfAs after the desysop. On the other hand, there's the possibility that some opposition will stem from being desysopped. However, while we can overturn our own desysop, I'd be reluctant in this situation, though I could look into it more. Wizardman 03:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: (Warning, this will be long.)

    Like Wizardman, I see the failed RFAs and it causes me some concern. There is no doubt, though, that an Arbitration Committee desysopping does poison the well to some extent, as Mackensen points out. I've reviewed the initial desysopping discussion on the mailing list (September 2006, if any of my colleagues wish to review it), and it's clear it was an emergency desysop that, in today's climate, would have been followed by a proper case onwiki in which Everyking would have been permitted to give evidence and explain his actions. He's done so since then, both on and off wiki, and I largely find his explanations believable.

    This particular iteration of the Arbitration Committee has been somewhat bolder in opening the door to editors with a troubled history, with an understanding that unacceptable behaviour would result on a prompt withdrawal of privileges. Everyking has outlined his areas of planned administrative work, and they specifically exclude those areas where there has been concern expressed. Most administrators confine their activities to limited areas; I am unlikely to ever edit the Mediawiki space, for example, and other admins rarely block or don't go near AfD. I'm willing to consider a resysop here, but I'd like to see Everyking be more explicit in what administrative areas he has an intention to work in, and not work in. Everyking, if you would go through the rights assigned to administrators as listed on Special:ListGroupRights and identify which you intend to use (perhaps on a userpage linked to your statement above), that would give us all a better idea of what you intend to do. Risker (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Have supported you at RFA and will do so again. I'm not keen on overturning RFAs, and I doubt I would ever vote to do this in similar circumstances. I think you'll pass next time. Cool Hand Luke 16:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Am only just returning to activity, following a wikibreak, but I've been comparing this request to the recently successful (and now archived) request to resysop another admin who was desysopped (I failed to vote on that in time). The difference here seems to be that there are failed RFAs to balance with concerns that the well has been poisoned against resysopping beyond what was reasonable considering the case at the time and the length of time since the case. My conclusion is that I would not oppose a motion to resysop, but I would not yet support it either (ironically, I think the number of appeals filed over the years by Everyking has weighed against him in some people's estimation). Like Cool Hand Luke, I think you have good chances of passing next time, especially if you take John's advice and plan towards it, showing what you are capable of doing (e.g. non-admin closures) and other useful work. I would also endorse a statement by ArbCom stating that though the question of community trust for adminship is not yet clear, Everyking is (and has been for some time) a user in good standing. Carcharoth (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (3)

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

Statement by HJensen

I do not understand my 12 month restriction. My personal description on my "role" in this case is found in this small essay. In a nutshell, it seems to me that Arbitrators gradually could see that I was not really an important player in this case. But this was too late, as sufficiently many had voted for a restriction (so the available information and voting options presented to arbitrators differed over the duratin of the voting. This in itself is somewhat disturbing. HJensen, talk 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kotniski

I just wanted to say that having read the essay, my own feelings after this case are very much the same as this user's. I think ArbCom really needs to look hard at what it does, how it does it, and what effect it can have on the well-meaning editors on whom WP depends. (In fact I've just been reading up on the John case, and unless there's something I don't know about, it seems absolutely despicable that a good contributor should have been driven away from the project in this way. It makes me ashamed to have raised my own case here when I now see that others have been treated so much more appallingly.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

In finding myself diametrically opposed in opinion to this editor in a major dispute last year re use of diacritics (see my notes on Kotniski) I found this user the most reasonable and willing to discuss out of those who shared his opinion, and while we certainly made our differences rather obvious, at no stage did he engage in edit warring on the topic. The dispute was prolonged only by the behaviour of others. On looking at this case I see no real differences in his behaviour here, and tend to think the sanctions are a little excessive with regard to this user. Orderinchaos 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have previously expressed my disagreement regarding findings and sanctions for this editor. I will wait for further statements and the comments of other arbitrators before commenting further. --Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am in the same position as Vassyana, in that in voting on the proposed decision I opposed the finding of fact involving HJensen, and further opined that I would consider the restriction imposed upon him to be overbroad even if I agreed with the finding. I too will await further statements and arbitrator comments here before proceeding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking (2)

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

Statement by Kotniski

I believe the "topic ban" that has been imposed on me in this case is totally out of proportion to anything I'm supposed to have done wrong. I accept I may have hit the undo button a bit too often on a few occasions, but that was mostly under provocation by extremely disruptive editors, in any case not exceptional by WP standards, and in no way characterizes my regular behaviour on "editing and style guideline" pages. The explanation given for the sanction by Kirill (diff) shows how misguided it is - there is no instability on the pages in question at the moment, at least not due to me, and absolutely no reason is given as to why the ban should be extended to talk pages, where I have always worked civilly towards finding consensus - I am currently doing so on several pages (well WT:CAT and the associated RFC at least), which efforts would be thwarted by this sanction. Since all I've done wrong is possibly to revert too much, I propose replacing the topic ban with a 1RR restriction. And I can promise not to edit anything about date links.--Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies: I know the theory, but I can't for the life of me see how it applies to me in this case. What topics are severely disrupted now (as opposed to six months ago), and what reason do you have for thinking that I am likely to disrupt them? I don't see how it serves the encyclopedia's interests to take a constructively active editor out of the decision-making process for a set of pages that mostly have nothing to do with the subject of the dispute (which is settled now anyway). To me this feels like pure retribution, and not even for anything I've actually done. --Kotniski (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Coren: I can assure you that it is very onerous not to be allowed to comment on pages I've always been active and constructive on. Apart from the annoyance of the restriction itself, it is the feeling of having been unjustly criminalized, which has already apparently driven one good editor away (I hope ArbCom is working to rectify that). And yes, I believe this is a demonstrable error - the ban was extended to talk pages in spite of the absence of any problem behaviour there.--Kotniski (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Rlevse: I have been editing productively for 2(?) years; the isolated "offences" I am supposed to have committed are more than 3 months old now, so I think I've more than satisfied your conditions. I know you mean to be wise and judicial and so on, but when you say things like that to your colleagues (implying that we're not generally speaking productive editors) you cause deep offense. (K on holiday)

Comment by Orderinchaos

I am writing in support of this user's application for reduction, in the view that the purpose of the decision should be to limit or prevent future disruption, and I don't see sufficiently disruptive ongoing behaviour to warrant a heavy sanction. This case seems to have involved a few instances of poor judgement in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he was hardly a major offender in the piece.

I worked last year with this user in a rather contentious area (naming of tennis players and use of diacritics, including a very, very long RfD). Overall, the situation was rather hostile - and some of the players in this dispute were in that one too (Tennis expert, HJensen, PM Anderson etc). Kotniski came in fairly late in the piece and actually was very constructive and helpful, atrying to assist the development of consensus while making his own personal views on the subject known. I think this assisted the resolution of the case in favour of the status quo, and I was sufficiently impressed in that he probably handled the dispute better than I did. I have since observed his behaviour at a number of junctures and have found him to generally work cooperatively and in good faith with others. Orderinchaos 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I also wish to second Tony's concise comments below. Orderinchaos 17:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tony1

As a party to the case, I have a conflict of interest in saying anything; I nevertheless ask for unusual leave from arbitrators to state that Kotniski, in my view, is one of the most honest, trustworthy editors I have met on WP, and has rare linguistic skills of great value to the project. I ask that the Committee consider lifting at the very least the ban on his editing of the style-guide talk pages. I believe the reversions referred to by Arbitrator Roger Davies were out of keeping with his normal demeanour. Tony (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dabomb87

I accept that the arbitrators are unwilling to lift or lessen Kotniski's topic ban due to his multiple cases of edit warring. However, may I ask what led him to receive a ban from discussions? There is no finding of fact that states he has been uncivil or disruptive in discussions, and the evidence does not shed any light either. I agree with Vassayana and Newyorkbrad that the restrictions seem to be overbroad. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rlevse
Seeing as Kotniski's restriction is for three months, I'm not sure what waiting three months for an appeal will do here. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

As has been pointed out above, I do wonder: what was the rationale between the talk page ban? I am totally unfamiliar with the case in general, but my experience with Kotniski was quite positive - I have never seen him be uncivil or disruptive in discussions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: Topic bans are intended to give severely disrupted topics a break from disruption and to give topic-banned editors an opportunity to get used to working in less contested areas. A three-month topic ban does not seem to me particularly heavy-handed and serves the encyclopedia's interests rather better than a 1RR restriction, which in many instances may be one revert too many.  Roger Davies talk 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Take Wikipedia:Linking: in November last year you edit-warred there, for which you were warned. You edit-warred again a week later, and were blocked for it. You did some more edit-warring there in March this year, making substantially the same edits as the last time. The ability to learn from past mistakes and to refrain from perpetuating disputes are two major factors the Committee will always consider in imposing remedies in a case. Based on the available evidence a relatively short topic ban such as this is apt, particularly in the context of the broader dispute. --bainer (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Despite the legitimate concerns raised by my colleagues both above and in the decision, I found the scope of the sanctions imposed against this user to be somewhat overbroad. I therefore lean toward granting all or much of this application. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general spirit of all the comments above. While I believe the history justifies some restriction, I also agree with NYB that the restriction is overbroad. While I would not go so far as NYB, I'd gladly support a topic ban modification that permits participation in discussion. Vassyana (talk)--22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time, given that the restriction is not onerous, I am not inclined to revisit those sanctions unless they were demonstrably based on an error. — Coren (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm thought over the current three dates case appeals and I think the thing to do is have the three editors edit productively for three months and come back for a review/modification request then. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Shortcut:
WP:AE

Requests for enforcement

How to file a request (please use this format!):

Enforcement requests against users may be brought if a user is likely to be acting in breach of the principles and decisions in a closed arbitration case, or a passed temporary injunction (for open cases).

Enforcement is not "dispute resolution". ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that the actions and behaviors in the remedies are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether or not that prohibition was breached.

Requesting enforcement:

Arbitration Enforcement is not the place for anything other than enforcement of a closed Arbitration Committee ruling. It is not for:

  • Content disputes, unless (very rarely) there is a content dispute prohibition in place. Use Requests for Comments for content issues.
  • Conduct not covered by the ruling. A Request for amendment may be filed if the existing sanctions are inadequate, or help may be requested at the administrators' incident noticeboard.
  • Proposed decisions (other than passed temporary injunctions). A proposed decision is not enforceable until the case is formally closed. Bad behavior in an open case should be reported on the administrators' incident noticeboard and you should consider noting the behavior on the /Evidence page of the case, and in some cases requesting a temporary injunction until the case is completed.
  • Community or administrator decisions, breach of these should be raised at the administrators' incident noticeboard or in exceptional cases, cited as evidence in a request for arbitration.

Conduct at Arbitration Enforcement:

Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still Assume Good Faith. ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals. Messages posted here that egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be redacted and may be deleted.

Administrator information:

  • If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
  • In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except
    • with the written authorization of the Committee, or
    • following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so.
    Provisionally (pending updates to the enforcement process), this applies only to specific administrative actions affecting specific users; it does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. (Clarification motion)
  • The enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.
  • More than one side in a dispute may have arbcom conduct rulings applicable to them.
  • Once an issue is resolved, close it and move it to the top of the Resolved issues section, from whence a bot should archive it in 3 days.
Using this page

Click here to add a new request and follow the instructions that will appear above the edit box.

Please be aware that as a user requesting arbitration enforcement, it is your responsibility to supply all information required for administrators to determine whether enforcement is required, as described in the instructions. Your request may otherwise be declined without further action.
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Parishan

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Parishan

User requesting enforcement:
Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Severe edit warring in the past 3 weeks:

  • Gago Drago [53], [54] The name of the town was Verinshen in 1985, when he was born, Parishan replaces it with the current Azeri renamed name.
  • Ganja [55] Foreign names were first removed by Proger. Parishan reverted to that version. [56], [57], [58]
  • Julfa [59] Brandmeister removed the Armenian spelling (he called it tweaked). Parishan reverted to that version. [60], [61], [62]
  • Kars [66], Atabek removed the Armenian term and replaced it with Georgian. Parishan reverts to that version. [67]
  • On Lingua Franca he launched a slow revert war that he resumed recently. It all started several months ago when VartanM removed Parishan's addition. [68]. From then on, Parishan engaged in a slow revert war. [69], [70]. Mackrakis modified it to comply with the sources Parishan used, it did not satisfy Parishan. [71], he continued to revert war. [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. He stopped for a while, but recently started again. [80], [81], [82].
  • Made drastic changes to the Armenian churches template. [83], followed by a partial revert. [84] then revert: [85]
  • Removed the link to Armenia from an Armenian monastery. [86], then reverted the compromise. [87]
  • I think this is sufficient to get the picture. If not, I will add more. Note that Parishan was almost placed under restrictions during AA1 already. See here: I will not hesitate to initiate a motion to modify this remedy after the case is closed if you involve yourself in edit wars or other disruptive types of editing.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
See below, under 'Additional comments'.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
High time for AA2 restrictions to apply to Parishan

Additional comments by Ευπάτωρ Talk!!:
Note that Parishan was informed officially (that is by uninvolved admins) twice of AA2 restrictions, here and here unlike most users. While the initial reverts were against AzeriTerroru (probable sock account), they are mostly reverts to recent controversial changes. Rest of the reverts were against other users.

In the recent past, various admin’s have confirmed that Parishan has a tendency to edit war but he's not under restrictions. See Deacon of Pndapetzim 's comment and the following report here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[97]

Discussion concerning Parishan

Statement by Parishan

What we see here is a random collection of all article reverts (controversial, non-controversial, sockpuppet reverts, anonymous vandalism reverts, and even plain edits) that I happened to perform in the past three weeks presented here as a gigantic list of instances of 'edit warring.'

In addition to not being a revert, edit (1) is merely clarification of non-controversial information. It does not take a wiseman to figure out that being born in the given town physically cannot imply being born in the mentioned region. Mind you, it was never disputed further, so the term edit warring does not apply here.

Edits (2) through (12) are reverts of a sockpuppet who could not think of anything better to do than to stalk edit histories of Azerbaijan-related article contributors undoing all their recent edits. His/her reverts would have to be undone eventually.

Edits (12) through (15) do not qualify as 'edit warring.' The other party removed information without consulting the provided sources, but the issue was quickly resolved on the article's talkpage.

Edits (16) through (18) are definitely not edit warring. In fact, with those edits I expanded the template adding more links that pertained to the topic and are not disputed (they are still in the template), and left a comment on the talkpage. My single revert in edit (19) was triggered by the other party either not having noticed the proposed discussion on the talkpage or not willing to participate in it. With that, I did not engage in any more reverts.

I wish I could comment on edits (20) and (21) but I am clueless as to what User:Eupator meant by posting them here. Are they supposed to qualify as 'edit warning'? Please elaborate.

Edits (22) and (23) are one-time edits in different articles; calling them 'edit-warring' seems too harsh.

Edits (24) to (27) are reverts of an anonymous vandal who 'specialised' in removing references to Azeris and the Azeri language from as many Iran-related articles, as s/he stumbled upon, and specifically in the case with Farah Pahlavi in removing sourced information about the personality's ancestry. I have tried twice [98] [99] to get the page at least temporarily semi-protected in order to put an end to this IP-switching user's disruptive activity, but neither time the administration considered this case of vandalism severe enough. Parishan (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

Eupator, could you please improve the presentation of the evidence so that we can establish more easily whether this is indeed edit-warring? For instance, I am unable to easily determine whether edit #1 is even a revert of somebody. You could complement each entry in the list with the name of the article affected, a diff of the revision reverted to, and the name of the editor who is being warred with.  Sandstein  05:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight I see how spending a little more time to organize the diffs would have helped you guys to sort through them.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Eupator, have you ever been involved with a content dispute with this editor? It seems likely because you were a named party in the first AA case. I feel we need to do a thorough review of their entire editing over the last few months (to avoid judging on cherry picked diffs), and we should also review your editing (to establish whether you come here with clean or unclean hands). We should not permit editors to use this board as a tactic to gain the upper hand in content disputes. Jehochman Talk 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
AzeriTerroru (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • abuse log • block user • block log • checkuser) appears to be a single purpose, edit warring account, possibly a sock puppet. I think we need to determine who's running that account. It takes two (or more) to edit war. There is no sense in sanctioning only one side of an edit war. Jehochman Talk 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Already blocked by Nishkid64, sock of Shahin Giray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 00:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Eupator, what sanctions exactly do you request? The modified AA2 remedies are very broad and allow admins to do almost anything. Parishan has already been notified of the case and the remedies, the next step would be to apply some sort of specific measure. What do you request? Thatcher 00:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Merely the application of standard revert/civility parole (one revert per page per seven-day period with respect to any article that reasonably deals with AA issues) for the duration deemed necessary.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 01:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Hi Thatcher, gotta say i'm impressed :) However I still believe that Parishan's reverts are part of a disturbing pattern though. One good example is with the article of Kars. On that article Parishan attempted to incorporate the modern Azeri term with a long history of revert warring. [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]. Unsuccessful, the Armenian name was removed altogether just recently by Atabek, and when reverted Parishan reverted back. In my opinion Parishan very often uses his additional revert privileges against users under 1RR. On Lingua Franca, this report by Fedayee may be helpful: [106].-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment. In a general, I have no problem with spelling for a particular town if there are verifiable NPOV references to do so. In this case, Kars has not much to do with Armenia, except for the fact that Kars province is located on the border of Armenia. Moreover, the origin of the name, as provided by NPOV reference is Georgian (kari - gate) not Armenian, the Armenian spelling cannot even provide the meaning in translation Armenian with a source. Anyways, since this is a topic-specific issue which needs to be resolved on talk page, not sure why this is a subject of discussion in WP:AE, except for lack of WP:AGF. Atabəy (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Inappropriate comment, see the article. On top, it seems Atabəy is confusing "verifiable" and "verifiable by Atabəy". Sardur (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I am aware that content dispute is not allowed here, but for clarity sake I have to note that 'Verinshen' was never the name of that town (this is regarding the edits in Gago Drago). See 28-76 on this Soviet-issued map. Parishan (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, I do not see a need in banning from editing the page Lingua franca. Perhaps you did not notice that the discussion regarding Azeri involved two sections on the talkpage. In the first section, after the third party review of the issue, I discovered another source and restored the deleted information having provided this new reference (as opposed to "reverting Mackrakis' version", as Eupator is trying to present it here). User:VartanM reverted this edit but ignored my proposition to continue the discussion. I let the crippled version hang in there, even though it was no fault of mine that VartanM's disagreement stemmed merely from being uncomfortable with the word "Azeri" being used on Wikipedia (anyone who has read the talkpage can see that he had not cited a single academic source or provided any plausible scienfitic counter-argument in response to about six sources he was presented with). So this is not a case of me insisting on the importance of "Azeri"-ness; really this is a case of VartanM and Fedayee having a problem with the academic use of the word "Azeri" all throughout articles on Wikipedia despite its academic validity (in fact, VartanM has been reported precisely for deliberately stripping Wikipedia of mentionings of Azeris and Azerbaijan [107]). Since February I have discovered two or three more independent pieces of evidence to back up the information he kept removing. This time it did not cause any disagreement or controversy. So I really have no idea why I am being considered for punishment as a result of my activity in this article. I would say, I did my best as an editor having had the patience to spend four months on the talkpage over one sentence backed by six or seven sources (found and cited by myself) reacting on outrageously unacademic statements from someone who was clearly trying either to wear me out or to temporise. I am all for reaching compromise, but compromise is not possible when the other party has literally nothing on the table except speculations: no sources, no stable arguments, not even a clear idea of what they are trying to disprove. Also note that while this discussion is going on here, an anonymous account goes around all of the said articles deleting the information added by me, as if attempting to provoke me to edit warring. Parishan (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I will keep this short and concise. The problem is not that Parishan isn't using sources but that the sources he uses do not say what he claims they say. He assumes too much from them. Under those circumstances, I can just not pretend that Parishan ignores the sources he is using do not support his wording and that's why it's impossible to debate with him. See my reply on Lingua Franca here. He also added a new source, but the source is not clear. Note also Parishan's consideration of the other editors version: "...the page is being reverted back to its non-vandalised state." As for the claimed removal of Azeri, Parishan shows a claimed report (his edit) but fails to provide the actual initial reply by VartanM here, the problem was anachronism something which Parishan never addressed. Note that other users' skepticism in trusting that discussion will lead anywhere in Parishan's case is because time and time again he ignores what others say. See those long two replies by an editor here about Parishan's created article [108], [109]. Parishan does not even bother replying to anything, the only comment he leaves is this after he removes the tag, when most of the reasons given to have the tag have nothing to do with this. If a revert war starts, he has a revert advantage over other editors so no one bothers reverting. That's all I'm going to add for now. - Fedayee (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
For anyone willing to look through the discussion, I think it is enough to assess the quality of argumentation on each side to realise who was driven by a desire to contribute productively to Wikipedia and whose only goal was bad-faith POV-pushing. Parishan (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest to that "anyone" to also have a look at the "sources". Sardur (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Let them be my guests. Parishan (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
If it wasn't for Moreschi's intervention here, where he pointed out the obviously more relevant title, you would have continued lumping all Turkic speakers as Azeris. The sources you provide fall vert short of supporting the sentences you put together. You even justified the following and never changed your behaviour since. Here's a simple example of how you cherry pick sources: [110]. You're providing a 1942 map in Russian knowing very well that after that map was produced most of those names were changed as seen here. Even cherry picking has its bounds. Thatcher, I invite you to mediate a discussion in lets say this article and see for yourself what the real problem with Parishan's articles is. Only on few occasions did Parishan correct articles in accordance with the sources, such as here (the source said Turkic). I think you get the picture.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Eupator, your desire to fantasise does not limit itself even here. This is an entry from the 1978 issue of the Great Soviet Encyclopædia regarding what you refer to as 'Verinshen.' None of the sources you provided say anything about any 'renaming.'
To administrators: above is exactly the type of behaviour that the users who are reporting me here frequently display during discussions. Speculations, original research and pushing false information despite having facts in front of their eyes in the form of sources, later collective reverting, initiating a chain of countless reverts and as a culmination, reporting the other party for 'POV-pushing' and 'edit warring.' Parishan (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Eupator and Parishan, please stop discussing your disagreements here and limit yourself to comments strictly relevant to the question whether or not Parishan's conduct is disruptive as claimed in the enforcement request.  Sandstein  05:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I know I went off topic. My argument is that 1) Parishan regularly edit wars, 2) He is very often uncivil as seen above ("your desire to fantasise does not limit itself even here") 3) Sees Wiki as a battlefield. For a long while he used to refer to everyone he didn't agree with as an opponent in quite a condescending manner until he was warned not to:[111]. The rest is your run of the mill content dispute and only Thatcher and Moreschi seem to be willing to dig deep and research each matter closely. If Thatcher wants to place new types of restrictions it would be nice to see them enforced.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein, I apologise, but I think this little debate says quite a lot about how my edits come to be considered 'disruptive' by Eupator and certain other uses who are heavily involved in the editing of Armenia-Azerbaijan-related articles. Whenever POV-pushing cannot do its trick, the other party's edits are seen as 'disruptive.' Parishan (talk) 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Eupator, I have been and still am referring to them as opponents. I have never been warned or been told about its 'condescending' connotation. OED defines an opponent as 'a person who disagrees with or resists a proposal', which is what happens during Wikipedia discussions. An example of it being used in a sentence: 'I should not be held responsible for my opponent's poor command of English.' Parishan (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
One interesting point that should not be lost is Sandstein (below) actually complaining about administrators needing to evaluate the content of a contested edit before taking sanctions. The implication in that comment is that Sandstein thinks it OK to shoot first and never even bother to ask questions later. This explains much about his scattergun approach to inflicting sanctions on editors. From several past examples I had assumed he was displaying a most blatant bias. Is it actually the case that he just doesn't give a damn? I would hope that evaluating the content of an edit before applying sanctions would be a basic requirement expected of all administrators. Meowy 18:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with Thatcher's take on the issue, but I think that in the article Lingua franca has been disrupted not by Parishan, but by his opponents, who keep reverting sourced info added by Parishan. Therefore I think that people removing sourced info must be placed on restriction. Otherwise, the problem with Azeri and Armenian names in the leads of articles about locations in Armenia and Azerbaijan is a long standing issue. I even initiated an RFC about that a couple of years ago. Generally, Armenian users insist on inclusion of Armenian names in the leads of articles about locations in Azerbaijan, but revert any attempts to include Azeri names for locations in Armenia. I can cite diffs, but at the moment I'm away on vacation and have a limited access to the Internet. I will pursue this issue when I'm back. But there's a problem of Armenian and Azeri names that should be adressed in general. I think something should be done to resolve this problem. Grandmaster 09:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not who's right or wrong on Lingua franca, but the behaviour of Parishan. Isn't it time to have this settled? Sardur (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Parishan

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
  • Analyzing the diffs. Thatcher 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments Lots of contentious editing about the importance of "Azeri-ness" in place names, etc. Many attempts to provide sources, or better sources. Discounting the sockpuppet who was stirring up trouble, most of the remaining reversions are not of major concern. However, use of article talk pages is rare.
  • Preliminary recommendations: I am contemplating the following,
  1. Banning Parishan, VartanM and Fedayee from Lingua franca indefinitely. They can discuss there issue on the talk page, and when they have reached a stable compromise, the article ban will be rescinded.
  2. Placing Megastrike14 and Serouj on formal notice about the case and possible remedies. Warning Megastrike about logged out edits.
  3. Warning Parishan to use talk pages more often to negotiate disputed edits rather than reverting (and sometimes trying to explain edits in edit summaries).

Not sure that further is required at this time. Thatcher 01:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I have a further suggestion. I am not sure that 1RR is warranted at this time. Eupator's evidence shows a pattern of Parishan adding Azeri spellings, place name variants, and evidence that people or things were Azeri, but also removing Armenian spellings, place name variants, and links to things or people being Armenian. I'm considering an editing restriction on Parishan, that he may add Azeri spelling and name variants to articles where he believe it appropriate, and where he has reliable sources, but he may not remove Armenian place names, links, and spelling variants from any article. He may suggest such on the talk pages. If there is consensus to remove Armenian names, links and spellings, then someone else may do it. If there is no consensus among the usual editors, Parishan is advised to seek outside advice by RFC or third opinion, or to seek compromise. I'd like to know what other admins think about this; if it seems that it might work, there are several other editors this restriction could be applied to.
  • I think that a frequent problem with these articles, which I just realized, is that the inclusion of a linguistic or cultural variant place name or spelling in the lead of an article is used as a way of marking the territory, to say, "See, there is an Azeri name for this place, that proves that it used to be Azeri even though its current status is in dispute." Or, "The Armenians never lived here before the current geopolitical dispute so giving this place an Armenian name is wrong." (Substitute any other ethnic, cultural or political group of your choice.) The use of the lead in this way, to gain traction in a geopolitical dispute, is wrong. In some cases articles contain a discussion of the subject's disputed status, where variant names can go. ("Smith 1998 says the Azeri name for the region was XXX, but Jones 2001 says the Azeris were never a significant presence in the region.") I think there are a lot of editors who are dicking around with adding and removing linguistic variants to the leads of articles, for geopolitical reasons, maybe we can stop this. Presumably, an editor with an affinity for group A will be able to find references to support his argument, if so he should be allowed to add it. But he can not directly remove group B, only propose it on the talk page. We could limit it to the lead and to categories, since that is where most of the trouble is, or make it global. Think it will work in general? Thatcher 05:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the extensive analysis, which I believe is quite correct, especially with regard to the general problem of addition and removal of place names etc. on account of presumed geopolitical bias. Your preliminary recommendations are uncontroversial, I think, and I find your proposed sanction with respect to territorial behavior interesting. I'm not sure, though, whether it is easily enforceable, because administrators would need to evaluate the content of each contested edit individually. Also, editors behaving in this way can be assumed to edit non-neutrally in other respects with regard to their favored group, as well. Might it be easier to just issue brief topic bans to editors that exhibit territorial behavior (i.e., consistently adding/removing contested names, spelling variants, categories etc)? In this case, we may also need to outline the general concept in some guideline related to WP:NPOV.  Sandstein  05:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
With respect to admins evaluating content, that already happens, for example, an article about a pop singer would not normally fall under this case, but would if the editors were fighting about his or her nationality. We already know that editors in this area edit non-neutrally with respect to ethnic and cultural divisions. We don't normally sanction people for having an ethno-cultural POV, but for bad editing behavior in connection with that POV (edit warring, ignoring consensus, dismissing otherwise acceptable sources, personal attacks, etc.) I'm struck by the seemingly large number of disputes that involve article leads and categories. The question for me is whether this would avoid some disputes or merely shift their location to the body of the article. I think it's worth a time-limited test. Insterested in further admin input. Thatcher 11:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the territorial behaviour sanction is too easily gamed. The others seem fine. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Loosmark

User requesting enforcement:
Skäpperöd (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:
Loosmark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Final_decision
    • quote section "Remedies/Discretionary sanctions": "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions."
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2#Final_decision, esp. this part
    • quote section "Remedies/Editors reminded": "... writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:

  1. [112], [113], [114]: POV-pushing/edit warring at Expulsion of Germans after World War II, failure to adhere to utilization of verifiable reliable sources, battlefield mentality. See detailed background in "Additional comments".
  2. [115], [116], [117] POV-pushing/edit warring at Polish Corridor, failure to adhere to utilization of verifiable reliable sources, disregard of already introduced sources, battlefield mentality. See detailed background in "Additional comments".
  3. [118] (same as third diff in [1]), [119] (same as second diff in [2]), [120] abuse of edit summaries for assaults

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
"Not applicable." But warned anyway:

  1. [121] Warning by Skäpperöd (talk · contribs)
  2. Loosmark has been around at this board in previous threads concerning the Digwuren ArbCom and thus should know what they are about.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
Loosmark makes valueable contributions in the motorsports area, the problems only concern Eastern Europe. Thus, topic ban or some sort of counseling.

Additional comments by Skäpperöd (talk):
Situation at Expulsion of Germans after World War II

  • [122] an account introduces an unsourced controversial line into the background section. This insertion is the only major edit of this account, the other two are [123] of 2008 and [124] in June 2009.
  • [125] I undo (20 June)
  • [126] user:Radeksz re-introduces the line verbatim (21 June)
  • [127] I revert (21 June)
  • [128] Radeksz reverts (23 June)
  • [129] I separate the controversial statement from the rest of the paragraph, add an "under discussion" tag and start a discussion at talk [130] (23 June)
  • [131] Loosmark joins the discussion. (23 June)
  • Between 23 and 25 June, the discussion developed completely unfocussed, I withdrew on the evening of 23 June. No sources provided thereafter, only WP:POINTs.
  • [132] In an extra subsection of the thread, I made a definite proposal for an altered text I thought everyone could agree upon. (25 June)
  • As the proposal was not objected to for two days, I introduced it [133] and removed the controversial statement [134] (27 June)