| Revision as of 14:11, 24 November 2008 view sourceHiDrNick (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,096 edits →Motion: re SlimVirgin: +← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023 view source AmandaNP (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,707 edits What the actual fuckTags: Replaced Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Wikimedia project page}} | |||
| :''WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for ] (]).'' | |||
| <noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> | |||
| {{/Header}} <!-- front matter of this page--> | |||
| {{/Header}} | |||
| {{/Case}} | |||
| {{/Clarification and Amendment}} | |||
| {{/Motions}} | |||
| {{/Enforcement}} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Current requests== | |||
| =<span id="REQ" />Clarifications and other requests= | |||
| {{Shortcut|WP:RFAC|WP:RCAM}} | |||
| ''Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at ]. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the ]. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to ]. '''Place new requests at the top'''.'' | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/How-to_other_requests}} | |||
| {{RfarOpenTasks}}<br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Motion: re SlimVirgin === | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> '''at''' 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Involved parties ==== | |||
| *{{admin|FT2}}, ''filing party'' | |||
| *{{admin|SlimVirgin}} | |||
| ;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request` | |||
| (and noting explanation). | |||
| ;Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried | |||
| 1/ Other venues are unlikely to resolve the issue. 2/ Relates to disruption of Arbitration process. | |||
| ==== Statement by FT2 ==== | |||
| This case relates to a serious misuse of administrator access by ], who improperly overturned a case on the Arbitration Enforcement page. It is likely that the community will be best served by motion, and not full case, since the matter is relatively simple, is already an Arbitration matter, does not need extensive evidence or citations, and the community will benefit from a quick decision. | |||
| * | |||
| A user (we know who, not relevant here) was blocked at ] for multiple well-documented breaches of an arbitration ruling. They had previously been warned by multiple administrators, the conduct was egregious, and wilful, and ongoing. | |||
| Due to the risk of mishandling by administrators, the block notice ended with a clear restatement of the header at Arbitration Enforcement. These are the exact same conditions that apply to every other case that reaches AE : | |||
| :{| style="border:darkgrey solid 2px;font-size:90%;padding:4px" width="90%" | |||
| | '''Other administrators should note as stated on the page header:''' | |||
| : "ArbCom has already decided that certain types of behavior are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether that prohibition was breached." | |||
| |} | |||
| It also reminded administrators : | |||
| :{| style="border:darkgrey solid 2px;font-size:90%;padding:4px" width="90%" | |||
| | This page is not to open any question of past rulings, but purely to consider whether the Arbitration restriction is breached: | |||
| : ''"Should make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may be blocked"'' | |||
| The majority, and probably all, of the above diffs appear to me to be uncivil, personal attacks, or bad faith made by . This thread is in case any administrator feels that the above posts are <u>not</u> uncivil, do <u>not</u> show bad faith, or that was <u>not</u> warned and previously aware. That is the sole question for this page. | |||
| |} | |||
| After some discussion, SlimVirgin (who has not participated in the dialog to that point) unilaterally unblocked stating: ''I've unblocked in part because this is more of the humourless self-importance that caused the previous block, and in part because these IRC blocks of have to stop''. | |||
| : ''Arbitration enforcement:'' | |||
| Arbitration enforcement is not a matter of "dispute resolution", as stated on the page nutshell itself. (''"It is not part of dispute resolution... It is... purely to compare a user's actions to any ruling that may apply to them..."'') It is an integral part of the arbitration process that a decision is already made, and the only issue for debate is to determine if there was a violation. | |||
| Arbitration Enforcement is consensus driven only to the extent of deciding whether the user violated their ruling. The view that it had been violated and the resulting block, were endorsed by a wide range of users/administrators. Three administrators had seen fit independently to warn beforehand over the past 48 hours of likely violations (Georgewilliamherbert , Elonka , Fred Bauder ). Afterwards, endorsement was posted by LessHeard vanU , Tznkai , Will Beback , Jayron32 , and arbitrators Jdforrester and Deskana. The unblock was met with apparent disapproval or surprise by CBM , and re-explained by arbitrator Newyorkbrad . It does not seem to me that those opposing the decision showed it was unreasonable for an administrator to decide there had been a violation of the ruling. | |||
| : ''SlimVirgin:'' | |||
| SlimVirgin made no visible attempt to consider whether the conduct showed repeated violation, no attempt to discuss the matter at AE, and no attempt to consider that multiple other administrators had given prior warning to the same point. SlimVirgin did not even as for any other block, discuss with the blocking administrator. SlimVirgin did not participate before or respond to concerns after her action. SlimVirgin instead assumed an insulting standard of bad faith, and used the weight of administrative access to disrupt accepted process, then vanished from any ensuing discussion. | |||
| SlimVirgin has been repeatedly warned, cautioned, or admonished at Arbitration for conduct unsuitable for an administrator in at least four separate cases: | |||
| :* ] - cautioned about personal attacks | |||
| :* ] - one of five users "reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures" in the face of disagreements. | |||
| :* ] - "when involved in disputes, excessively stressed other editors' involvement in unrelated issues... rather than the merits of the particular issue under discussion" and was admonished, instructed and directed to avoid "unsupported allegations of bad faith" and to avoid "unnecessary involvement in... administrator actions as to which may be unable to remain... professional". The Lyndon LaRouche 2 was also noted as salient. | |||
| :* ] - found that SlimVirgin was quick to make unwarranted accusations, and yet again reminded to use proper process (dispute resolution) rather than other courses of action. | |||
| :''Other norms applicable:'' | |||
| * ] - "Sustained or serious disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator... Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools... Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner... may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: Repeated/consistent poor judgment, Breach of basic policies..." | |||
| * ] - " is not part of dispute resolution... It is... purely to compare a user's actions to any ruling that may apply to them" | |||
| : ''Effects of disruption:'' | |||
| As a result of SlimVirgin's actions it is likely that the user concerned, who is well aware of their actions and experienced at "envelope pushing", will have been given the impression they can act as they wish with impunity even if well documented and restricted, a further source of harm to the community. It is also likely to undermine other handling at AE, which is the final place for a wide range of frustrated users who have seen a problem editor through arbitration, such as in the nationalism edit wars. AE is rightly an enforcement page not a dispute resolution page. | |||
| SlimVirgin was well aware of the correct use of AE, and the block notice stated these again, to be sure it was well understood. Whether measured against the rquirements of AE itself, or against consensus - SlimVirgin had neither, and bad faith and unilateral action against established standards is not sufficient grounds for a serious misuse of administrative access in relation to an arbitration matter. | |||
| Arbitration is the final fallback for serious disruption. Interference with its proper processes is never a minor matter. Administrative tools are granted to be used appropriately. | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ===== FT2 responses to other statements ===== | |||
| ; Response to SlimVirgin's statement | |||
| This is in astoundingly bad faith. The requirement at Arbitration Enforcement is the same on all users. Essentially the rationale given, point by point, is: | |||
| # Admin has a conflict because the subject of the sanction doesn't like where the admin visits. (''"Unblock - blocking admin posts at ED, WR, Myspace, or is friends with X, and the subject of the block has bad blood with that venue"'' - sorry, no.) | |||
| # Subject of the sanction is a renowned content editor, so ignoring concerns of others (reflected in their warnings and support) or overriding other communal views and norms, both Arbcom and at AE, becomes acceptable. | |||
| # Decided the community wouldn't like it, so unblocked to save them the trouble of discussing. (In fact there was '''no''' pending consensus that the requirement of AE had been met nor even any consensus supporting the action; in terms of discussion, this seems to be mostly an "unblock because I want to". It cannot even claim to be mere bad judgement given the well-publicized nature of AE criteria and SV's awareness.) | |||
| # More bad faith ("I believed the block... was intended only to increase drama around the time Giano might decide to stand for ArbCom") | |||
| # Blocking admin is on the same mailing list as someone else the subject of the block doesn't like. (Subject of block has fallen out with someone else on Arbcom's mailing list.) | |||
| # More inaccurate IRC claims (for example David Gerard has had '''zero''' involvement in IRC for a year or more, it was agreed he would patrol it for a time, as I've agreed to do as at 2008; someone else will follow me in doing so eventually. Complete irrelevancy for this, either way.) | |||
| # Inaccurate real life allegations/claims (in itself Not A Good Thing To Try And Do) | |||
| # A comment on an actual diff - SlimVirgin is welcome to post her view on this diff, as others have done. However, note that the diff SV endorses, got complaints from other users, so that view is contended. | |||
| # '''Agreement that other diffs were inappropriate.''' (Also a view that by itself insufficient for a block, although it was not actually "by itself", nor was that view anything like consensus). Buried in the middle of the statement. | |||
| # Assertion "I didn't wheel war!" (not mentioned by myself) | |||
| # Assertion that "any admin can unblock" (No - Arbitration enforcement is an exception, there are stricter critieria for AE matters and 1/ SV knows them, 2/ it's in the header at AE, a page she knows well, 3/ it was in the block notice.) | |||
| # Another repeat of "visits a venue the user doesn't like" | |||
| # Mis-reports "would like to consider recusal" as "reluctant to recuse". | |||
| # Another repeat of inaccuracies related to David Gerard. | |||
| # <p>Incredible bad faith. Revenge fantasies, the works. Sorry SV. Arbitration Enforcement is where '''all''' Arbcom sanctions go for enforcement or discussion (unless they go to RFAR itself). Cross reference the earlier block of the same user, some 8 months ago, which I also posted at AE . Was Rubenstein/Matthews a factor there? Unlikely. So this was posted to the identical venue that the previous block was posted to in March, which is in fact the correct venue for all such matters.</p><p>Likewise why it's at RFAR not RFC is common sense and '''exactly''' textbook, too. Cases that are 1/ possibly unusually urgent, 2/ unusually divisive between admins, 3/ involve factors such as admin tool misuse (or even wheel warring as some may feel it, evident by your own need to assert it isn't), and <u>especially</u>, 4/ involve arbitration processes themselves (AE) or 5/ where the actions are similar to past Arbitration cases where the remedy has not been not sufficient to resolve the problem (SlimVirgin has had sanctions broadly related to bad faith and poor rationale, with irrelevant ''faux'' justifications, in an exceptional 4 cases now, which has not only '''not''' ceased, but now being used to justify improper use of tools and disrupting AE)... ''these are all exact reasons why a matter goes directly to Arbitration''. You know RFAR norms, so this shouldn't be a surprise at all.</p> | |||
| # Describes this as a "high drama block", but '''omits''' to observe that this was a remarkably calm and well mannered discussion and well within AE norms at the time until her own action . (You don't get to override a reasonable discussion, then assert that as a cause for unilaterally picking a decision you want.) Debates around a topic only become drama if the participants wish it. In this debate, up to SV overriding it, none had really done so, and this is a change from the unblock reason given at the time . | |||
| In brief, a mix of 1/ repeated and at times egregious bad faith, and 2/ unsupported, tenuous or irrelevant allegations. This is exactly the findings in prior cases, dating back a long time, so it's fairly clear it's not just "new today". What is striking about the statement is the following: | |||
| # Does '''not''' address that other users had also seen a concern and there were multiple prior admin warnings | |||
| # Does '''not''' substantively address the edits themselves. To the extent that they are discussed, admits some were inappropriate, and a view (contended by others) that one of the several listed was not offensive. | |||
| # Does '''not''' address that a good level of "best practice" was followed in the handling. (Textbook case handling of RFAR sanction breach) | |||
| # Poor reasons for disrupting all norms of Arbitration Enforcement. | |||
| # Poor or no reasons for blatantly inappropriate ] close to an active debate in which significant concerns ''were'' stated and where her view was not in any way consensus. | |||
| # Poor judgement in unblocking a user who had acted disruptively or (per own admission) inappropriately, and who would be greatly encouraged to repeat by her untoward action when this was not a foregone conclusion. | |||
| # '''Sidelines''' all statement issues in favor of a comment that once the original block is reviewed, ''That's the matter dealt with as far as I'm concerned.'' This dismissive treatment suggests SV's own personal conduct does not strike her as maybe needing any review. | |||
| # Focusses heavily on bad faith interpretation to justify, and tries to make a case that simply doesn't stand up. | |||
| # Does '''not''' take note that part of the case statement, references SlimVirgin's repeated ''past'' Arbitration case findings including repeated bad faith, and that here of all places SV's conduct is on display. Instead, repeats it all again. ("]" is a long standing warning at Arbitration.) This makes concerns about poor judgement even more pointed - if SV cannot even restrain basing her statement on previously criticized grounds here, and lacks the judgement to avoid doing so, then those cases suddenly come far more into the foreground and become far more significant. | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 08:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ; Response to CharlotteWebb | |||
| In a way, ] has actually got it right (a "]" in a literal sense is a request made to trusted others, to fill in whatever they consider appropriate). Arbitrators have to be very careful what they say and support (]). I'm presenting the problem and my view on the principles and issues. It semed better not to specify an exact requirement, and let ArbCom decide as it felt fit. However if I'm asked by other users what I'm looking for: | |||
| 1) The integrity of Arbitration Enforcement (which is both tightly defined and long-standing), to be enforced and restated in a way that actually counts. Specifically, users to be made aware generally, via motion or remedy, that there will be serious consequences in future to poorly judged and egregious disruption of Arbitration processes even on a first incident, at least until a better way to handle serious cases is developed and agreed. For those who don't engage in editing on heated topics and don't understand what AE does for editors, a large range of difficult disputes now use Arbitration Enforcement as a back-stop. If a contributor isn't blocked/banned because there's a lesser remedy available under some restriction, that's where the restrictions will be assessed. AE is not part of dispute resolution, it is created as part of Arbitration process to answer one specific kind of question, whether a sanction is violated. That was completely overridden in this case. Like it or not, until we have a better way to handle difficult disputes, AE backs up all Arbitrated topic and page restrictions, all the cases where ArbCom has been able to avoid telling a user "you're banned" when it is only specific behaviors that are a problem, all general sanctions in the nationalism edit wars, and a wide range of other matters. The wider community brought these to Arbitration in the first place precisely because administrators, ANI and usual processes could not handle them. This is why Arbitration Enforcement has a very tight definition and strict requirements. The wider community is invited at AE to help with the enforcing of Arbitration decisions. While different people may have personal opinions on a case, egregious "I don't care" or "doing what I feel like", or closing a section '''for any but appropriate reasons''', is almost never okay, and actions like this are exceptionally harmful in derailing the project's ability to handle disruption in a nuanced manner. Such actions may result in the enforcement of Arbitration ceasing to be as open to the community, if it starts to be too much of a ] where "any admin can ignore" or "most strident voice wins". SlimVirgin's action sends a signal that is how the page works. From a long standing administrator, especially, that is an unacceptable signal. It needs rebutting very firmly and very strongly. Given that, AE will likely operate better in ] too. | |||
| 2) Revisiting of past arbitration case concerns about ] in light of this case. There have been a multitude of cases, over a long time-frame, in which the same message was drawn: "SlimVirgin has behaved significantly substandard for an Administrator, enough for an Arbcom Finding or Remedy". Considering most users see no arbitration cases as a party at fault, or at most one, this is very exceptional. The community has repeatedly said it wants administrators to be held accountable and to higher standards. There isn't picking and choosing in such a goal, one doesn't get to say "but not for this person because (I like them / they write X type of content, etc)". I pushed for higher standards on '''all''' admin matters, to protect users from poor adminship. And to show non-bias, I also pushed for Arbitrator standards in the updated Arbitration policy proposal -- in fact I am the only Arbitrator, and sole administrator, to explicitly do so. High standards matter and without apology I push for them on behalf of the community from within Arbcom. With this many users, we need to be able to rely on administrators acting within reason and fair judgement, and not egregiously going "off the rails" and doing whatever they feel like, however badly it might be against norms. I feel there may be a need to consider whether the track record shows a concern of this type with SlimVirgin, that should now be addressed. If we do then the remedy would be "whatever Arbitrators feel prevents and addresses it going forward", like all arbitration. It's an Arbitration matter that was breached, and the concerns and decisions of previous Arbcom findings and remedies that were ignored. So it comes back to Arbcom to reconsider, like any other Arbcom remedy that has proven insufficient to address the problem behavior. | |||
| 3) A view whether the unblock was properly/improperly founded. (But no reinstatement pursuant to that.) | |||
| ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 09:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by SlimVirgin==== | |||
| Fred Bauder and I have discussed this by e-mail. I've assured him that I won't reverse any block of his (I had no intention of reversing more than once, and I wouldn't have reversed even once had the first block been made by an uninvolved admin). Fred intends to study the diffs FT2 provided over the next few days and decide whether to reinstate the block. That's the matter dealt with as far as I'm concerned. | |||
| The reason I unblocked is that it was a block of an excellent editor by a prominent IRC admin, where there has been considerable bad blood between that editor and IRC in the past. I believed the block had no hope of standing, and was intended only to increase drama around the time Giano might decide to stand for ArbCom. | |||
| Admins associated with the so-called IRC cabal (of which FT2 is a prominent member) are, rightly or wrongly, viewed as having hounded and bullied Giano for the last two years. The reason Giano was upset over the last couple of days was because David Gerard, another prominent IRC-er who has been in conflict with Giano for a long time, had blocked and checkusered Giano, and had indefblocked another of his accounts. David Gerard and FT2 are closely involved with one another, through the ArbCom mailing list, through their involvement in IRC, and through Wikimedia UK, which they both played leading roles in until its collapse. FT2 turning up to block Giano because he was uncivil after being upset by a David Gerard block showed very poor judgment on FT2's part, at best. FT2 and David blocking Giano would be a bit like me blocking Cla68. | |||
| FT2 also exaggerated some of the things Giano had said that supposedly prompted the block. For example, FT2 said Giano told a woman admin she should be ashamed of her sex, and that men don't like women who have opinions. | |||
| In fact, Giano (as ]) had told Elonka: | |||
| <blockquote>What a silly question, are you ashamed of your sex? Well I am ashamed of you, for thinking such a thing. What a charming study Mr Hochman has just uploaded of Miss Reighly, it reminds me of myself, just after my cosmetic dental surgery. - As for you Ms Elonka, I would change that attitude if I were you, men don't like a woman with an opinion you don't want to stay on the shelf for ever do you? </blockquote> | |||
| It's clear that this is satire. | |||
| The one thing I did agree was inappropriate was calling Will Beback a troll, but in and of itself, it's not worth a block given the context of Giano being upset by David Gerard's block. | |||
| Overturning a block once is not wheel-warring. By the ArbCom's own definition, wheel warring is the ''repeated'' overturning of an admin action. There is also no obligation for admins to discuss blocks before overturning them, especially when they feel the block is clearly wrong. All attempts (including by myself) to change WP:BLOCK to prohibit unblocking without discussion have failed — admins want to retain the right to overturn a block immediately, where they feel in good faith that it cannot be justified. | |||
| I feel that any block of Giano by prominent IRC-ers, for any reason, is highly inappropriate, given the bad blood that exists between them, and that it's important to overturn such blocks without delay. If an admin not heavily involved with IRC had performed the block, I would have disagreed with it, but I wouldn't have overturned it. I think it's safe to say that I'm known for ''not'' overturning admin actions without discussion; this was one of the rare occasions when I felt it was not only justifiable, but important that the block be undone quickly. | |||
| I want to draw the ArbCom's attention to FT2's reluctance to recuse. He wrote that he wasn't convinced he was involved enough in this case to have to recuse, and needed time to think about it — despite his involvement with David Gerard, despite his involvement with IRC and the alleged IRC feud with Giano, despite the fact that it was FT2's block I'd overturned, and despite the fact that it was FT2 himself who filed this RfAr. In spite of all that, he was '''considering overseeing this case as an arbitrator'''. I find that sense of entitlement quite disturbing in a member of the ArbCom. It's the same attitude that made him think his block of Giano was appropriate in the first place. | |||
| I also want to add something about certain admins feeling their blocks must never be overturned just because they sit on the ArbCom. Charles Matthews recently filed an RfC against Slrubenstein for undoing a block of Charles's without discussion, and hinted heavily that he felt Slrubenstein ought to be desysopped over it. Although the community agreed it would have been better if Slrubenstein had talked to Charles first, it firmly rejected the view that Charles's blocks were in any way special because he sits on ArbCom. See ]. | |||
| It seems the above made FT2 realize there was no point in going the RfC route, so he's trying to get the ArbCom — where he feels he wields considerable influence — to exact revenge on his behalf, even though no other form of dispute resolution was even attempted. FT2, who argues that talking is always important, didn't even e-mail me to object to the unblock. | |||
| To avoid these high-drama blocks in future, I suggest the ArbCom appoint six uninvolved admins with no links to IRC to enforce the civility parole against Giano from now on, and that these admins be the only ones allowed to issue blocks against him under that provision. <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 06:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| FT, you're ''considering'' whether or not to recuse? That's pretty weak, my friend. Please recuse. ] (]) 19:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I have no strong opinion on the appropriateness of the original block, or SlimVirgin's reversal. But I do consider ]'s behavior deeply troubling. I would have expected the OrangeMarlin debacle to have taught him to be more careful and to avoid throwing his weight around. I would have expected basic common sense and decency to cause anybody involved in a case like he is in this to recuse himself. The mere fact that he initiates the case should be enough to cause recusal. | |||
| I'm also less than thrilled by statements like ''Interference with its proper processes is never a minor matter'' that seem to put process above community consensus. --] (]) 20:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| =====Additional questions after the FT2 response===== | |||
| * I appreciate that FT2 now recuses himself. | |||
| * 500 words or less? | |||
| * Which textbook? | |||
| --] (]) 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| FT2, it was your block that was overturned, and it was you who filed this "motion" (or request), so I cannot possibly see a way in which you could also be active as an arbitrator here. Please recuse, and let the other arbitrators deal with this. --]|] 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| This is, in a manner of speaking, a political struggle, and none of us should be naive about this. And it won't do any good either to try pretending that wikipedia has a legal system. Misplaced Pages has a series of policies and guidelines (including IAR), but this is not quite a legal system (and if it were it would be embarassing, honestly). Seeking to rubber-stamp political achievements of certain groups in some pretend court makes wikipedia look like some backward hole in the earth country. I suppose something has to give. Giano's sanctions have to be lifted as they are completely counter-productive, and their WP:AGF intention obviously far from ever being realized has been confounded by multiplying drama and community division many fold. | |||
| Obviously, whatever happens, "punishing" SlimVirgin would be random and capricious, as she is but the latest of many admins to perform an unblock on Giano. While normally admins are of course expected to consult before performing a controversial block or unblock, no reasonable person with knowledge of this case could expect consensus to be obtainable either way. That's something the policies, guidelines and wikiethics don't say anything clear on, so let's not pretend they do just for the sake of judgmentalism. | |||
| I'd agree ArbCom enforcement needs reformed. This is already mentioned in the Piotrus 2 case. Enforcing admins obviously need to be protected against recrimination, and enforcement needs to be resolved by something a little more morally credible than the "how many armed friends turn up at the hearing" means common both to wikipedia and to early medieval courts. On the other hand, the community clearly needs to be protected from the ArbCom. Declaring an admin free-for-all against any user, especially high profile prominent users like Giano with many admin enemies, is truly messed up and I would really like to know what was going through the head of the person that thought of that. Creative chaos? | |||
| I'd like to add, we are still flying through "legal" design space here on wikipedia. While considering this, consider also that this is an encyclopedia and that quality content production and maintenance is our aim. Design of all arb findings should be according to this and all things underlying and supporting it as they support it, overriding all matters incidental and parasitical. When certain rules cause so much pointless social disorder, responsible people seek to make the rules better, not continue to enforce them. That's incidentally a decent historical lesson available for us all to draw upon without having to pay any tuition by learning it separately from our predecessors. | |||
| ] (<small>]</small>) 20:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Question and comment from ] ==== | |||
| How can FT2, in good conscience, bring this motion? While SV may have faults, this unblock was not improper. A block from an arbitrator carries no more weight than a block from a normal administrator. Considering removal of her tools for this is simply and patently absurd. <small><sup>''S.''</sup></small><small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>'''D.J.'''] 20:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *What the block policy says, and how it is practiced are two different things. I've read the policy, and I've seen it practiced. Unblocks are performed all the time with little or no discussion with the blocking admin. I've never seen such action result in an arbitration motion. Should SV have talked it out first? Yes. Was undoing an ill-conceived block ''in itself'' improper? I don't think so, which was my point. The only difference between this and the multitude of other cases where blocks were overturned without adequate discussion is that in this case, an arbitrator was the initial blocking admin. <small><sup>''S.''</sup></small><small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>'''D.J.'''] 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Quite simply, the leap from being a "bad idea" to being worthy of deadminning is quite a large one. In my view, the initial block by FT2 was a "bad idea", and the initial block by Gerard that precipitated all this nonsense was horrendously bad. Yet Gerard is let off with simply a promise to be good, while an arbitrator requests removal of SV's tools. I fail to understand the dichotomy. <small><sup>''S.''</sup></small><small><sub>''D.''</sub></small>'''D.J.'''] 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by ]==== | |||
| In reply to S. Dean Jameson above, you may want to actually read the blocking policy and other relevant polices. Unblocking a user, regardless of who the user is or who made the original block, without discussing with the blocking admin or involving oneself in the ''active discussion'' about the block on the relevant noticeboard first, is, if not explicitly forbidden, extremely inappropriate. Saying that its "not improper" could not be farther from the truth. <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 21:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd really like to know the last time someone unilaterally undid a block that was being actively discussed, and the community and arbcom were perfectly fine with it. I really fail to see how completely ignoring the community is fine. | |||
| ::(from above)''"The only difference between this and the multitude of other cases where blocks were overturned without adequate discussion is that in this case, an arbitrator was the initial blocking admin."'' | |||
| :And it was a block of a controversial user. And it was being actively discussed on an admin noticeboard. And there was significant (though not overwhelming) support for the block. And it was in relation to an arbcom remedy. And the blocking policy says unblocking without discussion is a bad idea. All of that put together and unilaterally unblocking and issuing a giant SCREW YOU to the community, policy, established process, and arbcom, is perfectly fine? <font face="Broadway">]]</font> 21:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Reply to the above statement and comment by ]==== | |||
| Undoing another administrator's action without discussion with that administrator, or seeking consensus from uninvolved editors first, is a very improper thing. No matter what my thoughts on this block in this action (I'm not going to say my personal opinions here, as it's not the focus of things), there is no record that SlimVirgin sought either. I certainly hope that there are extenuating circumstances. As regards for FT2's recusal. I think, as the proposer of the motion, FT2 should recuse on this issue. The fact that this motion is necessary, should be all the "vote" that is needed, I think. ] (]) 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by uninvolved user PhilSandifer==== | |||
| Although I have, in the past, supported SlimVirgin, and generally have been inclined to support her as an admin, I find the climate of automatic unblocks in this situation particularly toxic, and feel that they have undermined not only the arbcom's ruling in this case, but the basic concepts of civility. It is unfortunate that SV should be made an example of in this case, but the fact of the matter is, her unblock is truly egregious and ill-advised. Reluctantly, I support this motion. ] (]) 21:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by uninvolved ]==== | |||
| Without question the Arbitration Committee is imperfect. Nevertheless it is the needed system to help a large and diverse community deal with problems. It cannot be discounted or ignored at will. The unblock by SlimVirgin is without excuse and should be reviewed immediately. This is not an attack on FT2 but an attack more broadly on ArbCom. Apart from a thorough and convincing explanation from SlimVirgin a full case should be initiated. The review requested by FT2 should only be to clarify the conditions of FT2's block and to reinstate that block. ArbCom ignores this action at its on peril. ]<sub>]</sub> 21:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| This should be speedily rejected; where is the dispute resolution? ''"Other venues are unlikely to resolve the issue."'' I don't see why that should be the case. This seems like a perfect opportunity to use mediation first, and see if that works. <font color="green">]</font> 22:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Comment to Charles Matthews by ] ==== | |||
| What are you supporting, exactly? There doesn't appear to actually be any indication in FT2's statement as to the desired outcome. ] (]/]) 22:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]. — ] 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by CharlotteWebb ==== | |||
| FT2, I agree with the two comments above. | |||
| #"Other venues are unlikely to resolve the issue" is a greater assumption of bad faith than anything you have attributed to Slim. | |||
| #Although your laundry list of complaints unsurprisingly exceeds the "500 words" guideline, you have failed to propose any actual remedy. I've read it twice, but other people are less patient. Could you refactor this perhaps, cut to the chase, so that the other arbitrators know what the heck they are voting to support, rather than having to make an educated guess? (I figured they would have learned a lesson or two about assumptions by now…) | |||
| To be fair they probably already know through other channels, but that's irrelevant. If desysopping Slim (and/or banning Giano) is what you want, could you kindly say so in short, plain English? Thanks. — ] 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Replied above. And no, they don't (or didn't until posted). ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 09:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Kristen Eriksen ==== | |||
| It's not helpful to bring what amounts to a request to desysop one of Misplaced Pages's most respected administrators to the arbcom over a single disputed unblock. No prior dispute resolution, no showing that this was anything more than an isolated instance of what may be wheel warring, nothing other a few isolated cases in which SlimVirgin was cautioned over unrelated activities. Controversial blocks (blocking Giano for any reason ''will'' be controversial) need to be discussed, and consensus reached, ''before'' they are performed to avoid serious disruption. Most importantly, though, we need to avoid the corrosive effects of acrimonious conflicts between good-faith users, which substantially impairs our mission of producing a high-quality reference work. Rather than calling for severe sanctions against SlimVirgin, Giano, FT2, or David Gerard, I would ask everyone here to calm down, step back, and recognize that our common interests are far more important than this conflict. ] (]) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| The first section of ] contains a big green box that says: | |||
| :Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of ''future'' problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. | |||
| It was a year ago after ]. (For some reason I am sure that FT2 knows this passage.) | |||
| Unless and until Arbcom explicitly expresses its desire to override this important detail of blocking policy, it does not seem reasonable to interpret a predictably highly controversial block of Giano that has no chance of changing his behaviour as authorised by ] and the ] it refers to. | |||
| In addition, any hypothetical chance of an educational effect of this block was undermined by a ] that exposed bias in the blocking admin. | |||
| Under these circumstances a fast unblock was the only option that promised a potential reduction in disruption. In principle, SlimVirgin should have discussed with FT2 first. Before the background of various recent events it was a ] decision not to do that. In the recent past, FT2 has been consistent in showing an appalling lack of judgement. (E.g.: Delivering the verdict of the ] as if this was plausibly a reasonable Arbcom action. An apparent complete failure to understand how serious procedural errors can potentially lead to incorrect findings in the ]. Considering "whether recusal is appropriate" .) Just as FT2 found it appropriate to state that "Other venues are unlikely to resolve the issue" he has with SlimVirgins's unblock, SlimVirgin had no reason to believe that anything but prolonged drama would result from contacting FT2. | |||
| This motion should either be rejected or accepted with the understanding that the behaviour of all involved parties is examined, including that of current Arbcom members. --] (]) 00:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :It has always been my understanding that Arbcom is not in the business of handing out punishment. After I am no longer sure there is a consensus on that. If Arbcom does in fact see fit to hand out punishment ] this should be better advertised in the community, to avoid such misunderstandings in the future. --] (]) 01:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Another point that needs to be clarified now that the Arbcom's authority is so low: Does it work as a catalyst that helps the community make up its mind and find consensus (the one prepared by the committee)? Or is it willing to enforce its judgements against strong resistance from a sizable and influential part of the community? That this question has arisen now, forcing us to choose between an impotent Arbcom and a dictatorial Arbcom, may actually be an important root of this conflict. Unfortunately, ] does not help to answer either this question or the previous one. --] (]) 02:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I hope I found the answer to my first question at ]: | |||
| ::ArbCom decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive. ] at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals. | |||
| :(This passage is about as old as the AE page itself, from early 2006.) "Gaming the system" seems to be a good description for what happened here when/after Arbcom involving an apparent privacy violation by a former member. Since this was not ''technically'' a violation of the ], there is no chance of this being rectified by the ]. The predictable fury of a well-known choleric actor who found himself completely helpless was taken as a pretext for a punitive act. --] (]) 08:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| I was about to post a note to SlimVirgin's talkpage, that I strongly disagreed with her actions in overturning Giano's block. But then I saw the link to this motion, so I'll post here instead. In my opinion, when SlimVirgin overturned FT2's block without consultation, it was a serious abuse of administrator tools. ArbCom sanctions are not placed in a frivolous manner. They are placed after extensive deliberation, by a group of our most trusted editors. Sure, individual arbitrators and decisions may not be perfect, but overall the restrictions that come out of arbitration cases are produced via a careful process, and should be respected. If we as a community don't like the decisions that the Arbitration Committee makes, we have procedures to deal with them. But what is ''not'' appropriate is for an admin to simply unilaterally decide that they are going to use their tools to overturn enforcement of ArbCom decisions. I realize that the name "Giano" tends to stir strong emotions in many members of the community. However, when I look at the situation as an uninvolved admin (who has a certain amount of experience with arbitration enforcement), things look pretty clear to me: A user who was under an ArbCom civility restriction, was repeatedly violating that restriction. An admin, FT2, enforced the restriction with a block. A second admin, SlimVirgin, overturned that block, without discussion, without consensus, without even a courtesy note to the blocking admin. They did not discuss, they did not find a consensus, they did not do a single part of it right. That's an extremely clearcut case of "bad unblock", and if the Arbitration Committee chose to de-sysop SlimVirgin over this, I would support that decision. Admins need to have some expectation that when they make a block, that other admins will treat their decisions with respect. And ArbCom restrictions have to be enforceable, otherwise why bother making them at all? --]]] 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Rhetorical questions from ] ==== | |||
| Where is Misplaced Pages going? And ]? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Answer by Jehochman ==== | |||
| This incident will undoubtably be asked about at ] so I'll just answer now. While I disapprove of civility restrictions as ineffective and prone to drama, and I disagree with the original block, the way to remedy faulty sanctions or blocks is through discussion, not unilateral action. This unblock was an egregious misuse of sysop tools. ArbCom must make sure this does not happen again, preferably by obtaining a pledge from SlimVirgin, or else by removal of her sysop access. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| <blockquote>To avoid these high-drama blocks in future, I suggest the ArbCom appoint six uninvolved admins with no links to IRC to enforce the civility parole against Giano from now on, and that these admins be the only ones allowed to issue blocks against him under that provision.</blockquote> | |||
| This is, imho, absolutely ridiculous. While I can't speak to the existence or absence of an IRC cabal (full disclosure though- I do use IRC although for no other reason than to speed up communications) the idea of only allowing admins who have no links to IRC to block him stinks of assumption of bad faith. IRC admins are capable of making neutral blocks the same way as anyone else- merely using a software does not automatically mean they are incapable of good judgement. If a block made by ''anyone'' is not supported by evidence, it should be undone. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 07:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by amused ]==== | |||
| So, here we are, again, for the so-manyest time (10+?), with a RFAr involving SlimVirgin. She is one of the major drama magnets at wikipedia, who for too long was able to act above the tribal laws that govern Misplaced Pages. As FT2 is correctly observing, her statement as usual is a mix of framing, insinuations and bad faith. What is even more worrisome is that she thinks she can decide who actually would be allowed to judge Giano's edits (Fred, herself), and who not (FT2, any IRC-cabal admin). I hope that the ArbCom finally will put an end to this prolonged and repeated ritual dance involving RFAr's against SlimVirgin for misuse of her tools by ensuring that she cannot misuse those tools any more by lack of access to them. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by CBM ==== | |||
| This is not the first unblock from SlimVirgin that has seemed questionable to me. On 2008-4-13, she unblocked MONGO with what I felt was a questionable rationale (). It appears from her comment there that she did not wish to wait for the original blocking admin to come back online to respond to her assertion that he had a conflict of interest . At the time of the unblock, there was not a consensus for an unblock in the ANI discussion, but a compromise to change the block to 29 hours had been worked out.. Earlier, on 2007-02-21, SlimVirgin unblocked MONGO after a block of 21 minutes (!) with the rationale "there seems to be a consensus that this block isn't justified, and the blocking admin seems to have gone offline". — Carl <small>(] · ])</small> 13:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Comment by ] ==== | |||
| In a wonderful world, the Arbitration Committee would consider a motion barring sitting arbiters from acting under the auspices of Arbitration Enforcement. The impropriety of this all-too-common action continues to astound. ]! 14:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| If it is decided that a full RFAR hearing would be better, then this motion should be moved accordingly. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Disclosure: I have commented on the relevant AE thread and blocked Giano at the beginning of October. If any appropriate party asks for my recusal, I will comply.--] (]) 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| *<strike>On principle, I will be considering the level to which I am involved or otherwise, and whether I can consider myself acting neutrally in the case as a result, and whether recusal is appropriate. I am fairly sure I am not involved to that extent, but I would like to take a little time and consider carefully. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 19:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)</strike> | |||
| * Recusing. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Awaiting statements, particularly from SlimVirgin. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 20:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** I will also note that ] may be of some relevance to the broader issue here. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 21:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Support. I don't care about being thought either "humourless" or "self-important" in so doing. This is a provocation, stacked on top of another user's systematic use of provocation. The moment to switch from ignoring attention-seeking behaviour to doing something about it is a judgement call, naturally. But to think one's own judgement simply over-rides that of another is what we characterise as "wheel-warring". My views on the matter are known, and indeed were recently discussed by me directly with SlimVirgin. So, it will come as no surprise to her, at least, that I support. ] (]) 21:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** As Tombomp notes above, there's no specific motion to support at the moment, but I take Charles' comments as support for the concept that "some action should be taken." ] (]) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***Well, we should at least rule whether this is within the scope of ] and an appropriate use of the tools. Support for the approach of handling this quickly by motion, if you need detail. I not long ago was in a dispute resolved by ] on unblocking. There people were saying that to cite the Connolley-Geogre case was somehow ArbCom imposing on the "rights" of admins (to do as they choose, it seems, without discussion). That, as you put it, was "deeply unsatisfactory". Or, as I put it in an email to SlimVirgin, was someone "playing silly buggers". Having slept on this, I see I could have been more explicit as to what I was supporting; but the approach of picking SlimVirgin up on this and making clear her exact responsibility (to communicate, to use the tools for the good of the project and not in a self-advertising gesture, and not to cut across ArbCom enforcement) is right and proper. In dealing with one swollen head, we have no need of another intervening and telling us "you are doing it all wrong". ] (]) 09:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Holding off on lengthy comments for now in the hope that Fred Bauder's intervention, described on ], may help resolve this issue insofar as SlimVirgin is concerned. As for the broader situation, every aspect of it has been deeply unsatisfactory. ] (]) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * There are a couple of issues here. a) Giano's and Slim Virgin's actions are more than questionable and disruptive. a.1) Giano, what is the purpose of the existence of the Catherine de Burgh account? To be fair, there were times where Giano was being baited but there have been many other times where Giano's actions have been highly disruptive. We have already wasted many resources trying to find ways to solve this long-standing issue. Nothing seems to be working and both Giano and the people he disagrees with are responsible of this mess. But the time being wasted cannot be compensated with Giano's encyclopedic contributions. I would be satisfied if there's someone who can convince me of the opposite. a.2) Slim Virgin, do we consult with blocking admins before unblocking someone or not? Have you considered other possible and viable options before unblocking? You have been involved in many cases already and it was obvious that your unblocking without consulting would lead to something of this nature. b) We have the issue of IRC and AE. b.1) I must state that while I agree with the nature of the original block of Giano by David Gerard I disagree with it being performed by an IRC participant who may not be neutral in this case. I agree less with FT2's (55 hours?!) block since it -- technically -- looks punitive. And again, FT2 is one of the main participants on IRC. However, this does not necessarily mean that the block was discussed or planned off-wiki or on IRC before being implemented. b.2) As for AE, it should be noted that it is not ANI or AN... It is a page to discuss enforcement of ArbCom rulings. I agree much with Elonka's statement except for the fact that FT2 block was ''not'' considered as an ArbCom block or sanction. For the rest, this is a textbook of "wiki politics" and it is blatantly clear that everyone is totally fed up with it. In brief, this is an encyclopedia and not a political forum. Giano and Slim Virgin... Sincerely, with the many frequent questionable and problematic actions, do you really believe that you are ''still'' helping Misplaced Pages positively as you used to do a while ago? Anyway, I'll be waiting for more input from other arbitrators and community members before having a more consice opinion on this. I am not sure at all if it would be a positive one for Giano and Slim Virgin unless I get sure that this won't happen again (meaning never ever again). Is this hard to achieve? -- ] - <small>]</small> 13:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Proposed motions ==== | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Request to amend prior case: ]=== | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| *{{admin|Jayvdb}} (initiator) | |||
| *{{admin|L'Aquatique}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Alastair Haines}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|Ilkali}} | |||
| *{{userlinks|LisaLiel}} | |||
| *{{user|Abtract}} | |||
| *{{admin|Ryulong}} | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| L'Aquatique has recently blocked Alastair, and while the block is reasonable, it is very awkward that she blocked him, as there is a lot of history between the two. | |||
| Here is the chain of events that led to the block: | |||
| * Initial changes which set off the chain of events to the block: | |||
| * Alastair Haines , and posts to the ]. | |||
| * Ilkali | |||
| * Alastair Haines | |||
| * Abtract | |||
| * Alastair Haines then one chunk of the disputed diff. | |||
| While this was happening, Alastair did another unrelated revert: was a revert of , as demonstrated by diffing from - there are no changes in the Sikhism section. | |||
| Abtract has been reverting Alastair on articles with no other involvement or engagement on the talk page. The evidence submitted by and about Abtract was disregarded in the case remedies. | |||
| :'''Update''': There was a more clearly pronounced interaction between these two users on ]<sup class="plainlinks"></sup> | |||
| :An anon made , which Alastair ; Abtract the entire paragraph ten days later, AH two and half days later, Abtract again with no discussion on the talk page; Alastair waits 7 days ''as he is supposed to'' under the editing restrictions, and , Abtract , and after 20 minutes without discussion on the talk AH and Abtract, requesting that he state his reasons for removal. Abtract with the warning and once more. At this point, Abtract has reverted four times, with "remove unnecessary detail and pov on motives" as the basis, repeated in the edit summary on three of those occasions. | |||
| :Finally someone else steps in, and . Abtract later , over a period of 40 mins AH provides some on the talk page and asks for other contributors to provide other examples, and two weeks later Abtract the uncited passages. Days later AH restored the passages, but has not provided citations yet. | |||
| :There have been only a few cases of reverts occurring on this article in the edits that Alastair has been a significant contributor. In each case it looks like the matter was quickly settled. | |||
| :If this was an isolated incident, it would be fair to assume that Abtract had a sudden and only brief interest in this topic on September 12, since he didnt follow up on the talk about the sources. | |||
| :Sadly, is the third article I have found where he has popped in for a visit to an article that AH has contributed to. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 03:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Further update''': ] shows a similar situation. An IP a section from the article, AH days later, and then Abtract 10 hours afterwards, again with no prior history on that page. | |||
| :He also appeared at ] a few days after Alastair and does a intro rewrite, and it was the which sparked an edit war on ]. | |||
| :<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Ryulong has extended the block due to the way that Alastair was managing his user talk page. Again this is justifiable, as the talk page management was not good. A big there. | |||
| I think there are three amendments that would help this case work better: | |||
| # Blocks should be from uninvolved admins | |||
| # Ilkali, LisaLiel, Alastair Haines and Abtract should not permitted to revert each others edits, or if that is too strong, they must accompany any revert with justification on the talk page. | |||
| # Alastair Haines should be given no room to move in the management of talk discussions, as he is his own worst enemy in that regard. This is primarily in regard to his own user talk, but a broader restriction would be preventative of similar problems occurring in other namespaces. He must not remove or later comments left by others, except by way of removing an entire thread after a reasonable period. (i.e. archiving) | |||
| @L'Aquatique, the mediation last time did not end well. Those scabs were healing, but now there is blood everywhere again. It is suffice to say that any warning or block by you will not be headed; I wish it was not so, but that is life. You may be right that another admin would have been rejected in the same way; it depends on whether they were guided by the fact that Alastair is a '''''massive''''' content creator, and should be treated respectfully even when he has broken the rules. I am not suggesting that you dont treat him well, but you are not uninvolved, at least from his perspective. I hope people can see past the arbcom situation, and see that his heart is 100% in the right spot.<br/> | |||
| I'm not disputing that the block was fine, I very quickly ] that, and because Alastair had said on his talk page that he wanted to be left alone, I emailed him privately and told him the block was fine and started brainstorming on how to resolve this. FWIW, he is in full agreement on the first two of my suggestions being helpful - the third will come as a surprise to him, but I hope he sees the intent behind the third is not malicious. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 06:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Miguel.mateo, please review the diffs I provided above. Alastair is under editing restrictions that prohibit him from making two reverts on the same page for ''a week''. Take note of the unrelated revert I mention under the bullet points. There can be no doubt that he broke the technicalities of the editing restriction, but the circumstances of the reverts placed Alastair in another situation where he was being overruled by the number of opponents. He needs to learn that he can not go it alone, and that he must take these problems to a noticeboard for admin consideration/intervention. The first block was fine, and escalating blocks will hopefully address this problem. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 08:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Ncmvocalist, L'Aquatique is involved due to an attempt to mediate on ], when it quickly escalated from there to L'Aquatique taking Alastair to arbcom, due to the mediation going wrong in lots of ways, and much of that was beyond the control of the mediation. It was probably heading to arbcom anyway. We can predict that unnecessary drama happens when involved admins continually address the problems arising with a valued user. It looks like a vendetta even when it isnt. It should not be too much to ask that involved admins to take a matter to ] rather than tackle it themselves. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 08:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @L'Aquatique, I didnt mean "tackling" in a bad sense ("addressing" would have been a better choice of words), and I think it is fair to call him a good faith contributor. I've revised the sentence; sorry that it came across wrong. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Kirill, Alastair has survived two months since the case closed ''without a block'', and the original problem ''this time'' was a few reverts, and it was accompanied with discussion on the talk page. And '''''now''''' you see no alternative but to ban him for a statement he made '''two months ago''', two days after the arbitration case closed? Even if he still holds that opinion, and he holds that position beyond the context of the discussion it was framed by, surely you can see room in his comment for a better outcome? <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 21:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @Ncmvocalist irt Abtract: My point is not that Alastair is a saint, nor was I concerned about Abtract as I wasnt aware of the outcomes of the recent case. Wikis are not perfect, and passionate editors often end up in scuffles - Religious topics are a hotbed. I am trying to establish that Abtract was very involved and it was an oversight to exclude him from the remedies of the last case, and it is one that Abtract appears to have taken advantage of. | |||
| :The interaction after the last case is , , , and . In all cases Abtract appears after Alastair and without any prior involvement or discussion, except in the case of Gender of God, where the has been no involvement since the RFAR closed. | |||
| Based on my analysis, there are not enough pages with interaction to establish that Abtract is wikistalking, and the intro rewrites have been good, however the number of similar pages suggests he is occasionally dipping into AH's contrib list, and removing an entire paragraph without discussion or explanation, as happened on ] and ], is a concern. | |||
| I would like to see more effective remedies looking forward: a level playing field and an uninvolved referee. I think the amendments I am seeking should help, but would welcome other ones. As the ] page has caused this to flare up two times, it would be reasonable to page ban them all from it, however Alastair has indicated to me that he is happy to move away from that page voluntarily if I jump in and keep an eye on it, so maybe that will be suffice to prevent major drama again on that page. | |||
| <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I agree with many of John's points- I particularly like the idea of not allowing the major parties to revert each other although in practice that may be difficult to regulate. In addition, although it is somewhat unorthodox, we must put some method in place to prevent Alastair from entirely having his way with his userpage: during this dispute he erased many of my statements and then selectively quoted sections out of context in a method that, frankly, stretched my ]. If for no reason other than transparency's sake, he should not be allowed to do that. Removing comments is one thing, removing them but replying to them makes it incredibly difficult for someone uninvolved to understand what is happening in a neutral way.<br> | |||
| I do not agree with the statement that "uninvolved admins" should not be allowed to place blocks. For one thing, who decides who is involved or not? I've had no contact with Alastair since the end of the arbcom case, I forgot to remove Gender of God from my watchlist and I happen to notice a revert on it- not by Alastair but by Ilkali. I looked into it, noticed that there was an edit war, gave both parties the same warning. Ilkali apparently listened to me, Alastair did not. His claim that I have it out for him is patently, and obviously false and I expect anyone looking at this situation to realize that I'm being honest here: I don't give a damn what he does, as long as it's within policy. Thems the rules of the game.<br> | |||
| It's easy to say that an "involved admin" shouldn't have made the call, but is anyone here actually disputing that it was the right call to make? From his comments and reactions to other admins that have dropped by it's clear he would have reacted this way to any admin who blocked him. Since it was the right call, it doesn't feel relevant to me who made it. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Response to NewYorkBrad: I do believe it was done in a way intended to mislead. If you get a chance, you should take a look at the history of his talk page, it's pretty much spelled out there. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Response to John Vandenberg: obviously, I disagree. This user may contribute a lot of content but that does not, as he seems to think- put him above the rules. This is not a newbie who does understand our social mores, this is an experienced editor who has been here long enough to know better- he's been the subject of an arbcom case and is on civility parole, for goodness sakes! There is no reason why we should be accomodating him. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 07:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Response to JV's response to Ncmvocalist: I'm tackling a good faith user? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch...? ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 10:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Response to Kirill: while I do believe that his behavior has been inappropriate and his conduct towards me obnoxious- I don't know that we're to the point of a yearlong ban yet. If we had newer evidence of his intention to wholly disregard his arbcom sanctions, I would feel more comfortable about it. Just as we don't block vandals at AIV who haven't edited recently, we shouldn't ban someone based on three month old diffs. He should be coming back from his block what, tomorrow? Let's see what his response to all this madness is. ]<font color="#5c9e83">]</font>]</font> 05:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Note by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| * I made a note re: the inappropriate removal of L'Aquatique's comments at Alastair Haines talk page prior to the block extension. | |||
| * I'm not too fond of the idea of changing the existing restrictions to reduce the number of administrators who may enforce them in this particular case. | |||
| * Will look into Abtract's conduct with one of the involved admins - I don't think the majority are aware of this so will notify them too. | |||
| ] (]) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to Newyorkbrad | |||
| Both myself and LessHeard vanU looked through this and per ], we couldn't find similar issues between Abtract's conduct here and that found in the Abtract-Collectonian case. Rather, it seems a case of reverting with minimal communication. Cheers, ] (]) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to John Vandenberg on Abtract-Alastair Haines evidence | |||
| This is indeed concerning - but it does not help Alastair Haines case in a great way either. A bold edit was made by an anon and improved by AH, and Ab reverted. The next course should've been discuss this edit rather than reverting over the bold edit. The fact that instead of discussing this, AH chose to see his restriction as an inalienable right to revert, is problematic. This is especially given the principle on editorial process, and the finding of him edit-warring, and what the remedy was intended to target. This seems to have occurred before Ab popped up in the third article (which although was later, isn't looking good either). ] (]) 03:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by uninvolved ] ==== | |||
| I do question the first block given to Alistair. Not only the admin who did the block is inappropriate, the block itself is not justified. Please check the evidence given in ]. ] (]) 07:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| @John: I am not disagreeing with you, but the evidence provided by the admin who blocked Alastair is here: ], the second evidence is a revert Alastair did on his own edit. I think the admin in question had definitely quick fingers to act. Then check again to her answers in ], she still believes that the second evidence provided is "within policy". Anyway, you have shown extreme professionalism so far in this case, I know it is in good hands. I will leave you guys alone now, I am sure you all need time to analyze. ] (]) 08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Dear admins, apologies for interrupting once more, but you can see some evidence of Alastair being attacked blindly (even when he can not defend himself) by one of those people that want nothing but to get him off Misplaced Pages, here: ]. Thanks, ] (]) 13:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by ]==== | |||
| Just to clarify my position. I have edited ] many times over the last year or so - indeed it is there that I had the misfortune to meet Haines for the first time. Naturally, the article is on my watch list; when Haines (or anyone else) makes unhelpful edits, I revert them. I would not support any relaxation of the restrictions on Haines who likes to use his undoubted intellect and knowledge to control the content of article he feels he owns. Nor would I support any restrictions on other editors to allow Haines more freedom to act - he is a bully who needs less, not more, freedom imho. ] (]) 10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I don't know if I'm actually an involved "party" in this. I reviewed the reverts Alastair Haines made after L'Aquatique requested someone to review her block of Haines. I looked into the block and made my comment on his talk page, and warned that if he continued to purposefully remove the comments left by L'Aquatique to skew the view of the discussion in his favor, I would prevent him from editing his user talk page. When I returned to Misplaced Pages yesterday, I found that he persisted in his activities and did the same to my message, I decided that the course of action was to (instead of protecting the page) block his account for 48 hours from that point such that the editing of the talk page was disabled. This added 12 hours to his block in total. If others feel it is necessary, I can restore the original block length and keep the user talk page editing disabled.—] (]) 11:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Problems like this will continue as long as Alastair wilfully and explicitly disregards the sanctions placed on him (). L'Aquatique's actions in this case were fair and generous. Alastair's violation of his 1RR was objectively verifiable, leaving no room for bias, and she did not even block him at his first offense; he was given a warning and contemptuously rejected it. The only reason we would restrict L'Aquatique from enforcing Arbcom's rulings is to protect Alastair's pride, which is at best unnecessary pandering and at worst encourages an attitude that has already proven itself disruptive. ] (]) 13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Re : At the point where , (which pushed him over 1RR) had been the most recent for over two hours. I object, as I did on my talk page, to the insinuation that I did or ''would have'' violated my 1RR sanction. There is no evidence of such. ] (]) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Re : Would you endorse a requirement that Alastair both: 1) accept that he violated his sanctions (thereby warranting a block), and 2) agree not to do so in future? If an editor is allowed to openly ignore the sanctions placed on him with no greater result than an occasional short-term block, then what was the point of those sanctions? ] (]) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| The fact that Administrator L'Aquatique is blind to the negative personal involvement and the animosity that she has toward Alastair is most upsetting. She went after him as her very first act as an Administrator. It was almost as tho she had him in her sights from the very beginning. She <s>should be banned</s> should recuse herself from any contact whatsoever having to do with Editor Alastair Haines. Her animus toward him certainly seems irreconcilable. --] (]) 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Everything I had to say about this case was said in the . -] (]) 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by not-impartial ] ==== | |||
| I have been too busy to examine the article material in depth, and I am nonpartial as I am a friend of Alastair ''(so if anyone feels this means this should be disregarded so be it)''. I note that (a) if I were blocked by an editor I had previously had a confrontation with after (b) ''two'' editors I had previously had run ins with turned up to revert changes of mine in a tense situation, I would be pretty enraged. Now whether this is justified or not is another matter, but what I do see here is a heated situation. Many actions are done and later regretted in the heat of the moment, so I would take this into account with respect to events and statements after this point. I appreciate L'Aquatique did ask another admin's view before blocking, which was a wise move and I respect that, but I do think in these cases that even the semblance of a COI can be bad - i.e. another admin should have done the blocking. End result, what am I asking for? A plea for clemency for Alastair, who is a valued contributor and has much to give. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| <!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements --> | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| * Awaiting statements. Note that a user's "removing warnings" from a his or her own userpage is generally ''not'' blockable (or "block-extendible"), although I can imagine some situations (was this one?) where it would be inappropriate to allow removal of comments in the middle of a thread so as to deliberately make the remainder of the thread grossly misleading. On a different issue, I'd appreciate someone's making sure there are no parallels between Abtract's behavior here and his conduct discussed in the Abtract-Collectonian case. ] (]) 01:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ** The information added by John Vandenberg adds to my worry that this may be another "wikihounding" situation involving Abtract. I have not reviewed the evidence on this myself as yet. Abtract's comments on this issue would be welcome. ] (]) 03:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Motion ==== | |||
| 1) {{userlinks|Alastair Haines}} is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Since he the restriction placed on him, and state that he has no intention of abiding by it, I see no alternative here. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 21:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Request to review ]'s ban === | |||
| *{{userlinks|Jack Merridew}} initiator:requesting review of ban () | |||
| *{{userlinks|White Cat}} wikistalked by Merridew () | |||
| *{{admin|Ryan Postlethwaite}} Misplaced Pages Administrator involved in email discussion () | |||
| *{{admin|Moreschi|Christiano Moreschi}} Misplaced Pages Administrator involved in email discussion, possible mentor () | |||
| *{{admin|Lar}} Misplaced Pages Administrator and Checkuser involved in email discussion () | |||
| *{{admin|Jayvdb|John Vandenberg}} Misplaced Pages Administrator and Wikisource Checkuser involved in email discussion () | |||
| *{{admin|Rlevse}} Misplaced Pages Administrator and Checkuser involved in email discussion () | |||
| Jack Merridew has asked the Arbitration Committee to review and lift his ban. (], ], ], ], ], ]). | |||
| :On Oct 24, 2008 Jack Merridew started a dialog with the the Arbitration Committee and some Misplaced Pages English administrators (name of email: thread Mentorship, take 2?) about returning to Misplaced Pages English with editing restrictions and a mentor. During the discussion, Merridew was counseled about the exceptions for his return, in particular the absolute requirement that he will stay completely away from White Cat. | |||
| :On October 28, 2008, White Cat was notified by email that the Arbitration Committee was reviewing Jack Merridew's ban. Since then, White Cat has given his thoughts about the potential unblock in several talk page threads, (, , and in an IRC chat (In the ArbCom list email thread, White Cat- Jack Merridew (Davenbelle) situation) | |||
| ==== Question from ] ==== | |||
| I note Condition #8, in particular "Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for '''one year''' by any uninvolved administrator" (emphasis mine). Am I correct in interpreting that ''any'' deviation from the remainder of the editing condition will result in a one-year block? ] (]) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)<small> Note - refers to Condition #8 in Motion #1, as it was initially proposed by FloNight.</small> | |||
| :'''Comment for FT2''': I note that you have changed the section I quoted above; could you please include that in your comment? ] (]) 04:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I am concerned at the timing of the proposed return of Jack Merridew - with whom I have previously had some convivial interactions - given that White Cat is a candidate on the 2008 ArbCom elections. I would seek reassurance that the conditions of the return of Jack Merridew includes a constraint upon him not participating in the aforementioned Election in any capacity; his voting for and advocating for candidates other than White Cat possibly being construed as acting against that party. I would point out that if Jack Merridew were not permitted to regain their editing privileges then they would not be permitted to participate in the election, and that under the circumstances being prevented in doing so while editing under restrictions is not as prohibitive as might at first appear. I regard this as a necessary extension of the restriction that Jack Merridew should not interact with White Cat, as proposed by FloNight. ] (]) 03:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| IMO, Jack Merridew has earned a "''final''" chance. It is not just the work he has done on other projects, but also the manner in which he has communicated with others about his prior behaviour. He has been open and honest, and a hard worker to boot. *fingers crossed* | |||
| It should be made clear that this is his final chance, and that he will not be enjoying the benefit of the doubt, so it is on his shoulders to ensure that there is no even the slightest appearance of relapse. It looks like FT2 is going to proposed something along these lines. | |||
| In regards to the Arbcom elections, raised by ] above, the discussion about this motion started prior to the elections, and I am pretty sure that it also predates ''any'' indication from White Cat that he was going to run. I think it is safe to say there is no possible chance that it was was a motivator in this case. It is a given that Jack Merridew would oppose White Cat if he could, and think it is sufficient "punishment" that he wont be able to that. Limiting him from participating entirely isnt something I would have even thought of, but now that you have raised it, it seems reasonable. It "cant hurt". As you say, if this motion doesnt pass, he wouldnt have been able to participate anyway, so he is no worse off if he is prohibited from participating in this years election. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 03:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I am of course less than thrilled at the thought that Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Jack Merridew) would return editing on this site. This isn't something I have any control on, I know that. I do not have to like it but I think I can live with it. All I want to do is '''not to deal''' with any more harassment. If arbcom can pass measures and enact mechanisms to ''insure'' that. | |||
| I will however say this. Moreschi is not an uninvolved third party on this matter. I would recommend arbcom to pick a mediator that does not have a past quarrel with me. I'd be '''EXTREMELY''' uncomfortable in asking Moreschi for help. I really do not want to be put in a situation any more uncomfortable than it already is. '''PLEASE!''' | |||
| Also in my view Jack Merridew should at least have three different mediators. If one mediator is unavailable (leaves the project, gets ill, gets hit by space debris, does a head-on with a planet and anything else equally unlikely) others would be there. This would also be in the best interest of Jack Merridew too me thinks. | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 06:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To Lar, | |||
| :What do you mean I clashed with "a long list of people"? Please stop treating as if I am the disruptive party. I am sick and tired of facing accusations any time I bring up an issue concerning Davenbelle. Give me a freaking break! | |||
| :We aren't exactly in a shortage. There are plenty of editors and admins out there who have not alienated themselves from me. Unfortunately Moreschi is not such a person. I do not believe what I am requesting is unreasonable. I am not trying to win a wiki-enemy and I mean no disrespect to Moreschi. I just do not wish to see him in the helm of this very fragile issue. | |||
| :--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also victims do not need "parole officers". And in actual legal systems if the parole officer has a conflict of interest, he or she is of course recused. I'd have thought Moreschi would recuse himself from such a task... --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 21:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To FloNight: | |||
| :You were having connection problems and seems like I only got a partial post from you. We can discuss this in greater detail if you are online now. | |||
| :--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To arbcom: | |||
| :Can the case be called ]? Shorter the better. No real reason for this though. | |||
| :--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 06:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I am in favor of this. I have seen this user in action on other wikis and I think he truly is committed to making a successful return here, and truly understands what will be required to do so. Further, as a steward, I've reviewed the unification of accounts other than Jack Merridew (which have all be explicitly directly disclosed to me although they are public record) and if there are any issues (there are some accounts that are in use by other users) I will do my best to assist in resolving them. | |||
| Finally, if the ArbCom desires that more than one mentor be appointed I am willing to so serve (this matter has come up in private communication already). However, I have confidence in Moreschi. He and I have already communicated and I have offered him whatever assistance he may choose to ask for that is in my power to give. ++]: ]/] 07:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To Pixelface: ''Wow''. I think you might want to refactor your words just a bit. ++]: ]/] 18:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To Tznkai: I think your analogy is a bit off... neither victims nor perpetrators get a veto over who the parole officers are, and I'm not sure it's a good precedent to establish that anyone (other than ArbCom) gets a veto over who the mentors are. Input? Sure. And ArbCom should weigh that input carefully. But in this particular case, the list of people WhiteCat has clashed with over the years is rather long. Are all of them to be disqualified? Is everyone who Jack Merridew clashed with also to be similarly disqualified? ++]: ]/] 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::To Tznkai: (I feel like we're having a dialog, maybe we need to thrash this out somewhere else) First, we are none of us perfect, and that includes both JM and WC. So perhaps it would be generally better if neither party had a veto over who could mentor and who could not. I'm with you in wanting to trust ArbCom to be sanguine about this matter. However, perhaps more than one mentor is a better approach here? I'm starting to really like that way of doing things. As for disenfranchising completely, that does seem a bit punitive to me, doesn't it? Either he's returned or he hasn't. ++]: ]/] 23:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I would also be happy to mediate in unbanned. I found Jack Merridew's behaviour infuriating at AfD, and I guess my views are more aligned with White Cat and other inclusionists. However, like some other deletionists, Jack has some very valid points on systemic bias and addressing it, is good with layout and has been contributing constructively on much-needed article content elsewhere. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Reply to Pixelface, KWW, White cat, A Nobody - all these editors make valid points, and if the consensus were to remain banned I would not oppose. I am merely pointing out that ''if'' Jack Merridew were unbanned, I would be happy to mentor as I have seen some good work. I concede that it is a long period of problematic behaviour, and like a Nobody, found the AfD participation troublesome and unhelpful. I think if White cat feels uncomfortable with Moreschi then a different person needs to be selected. Cheers, ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Oh dear God no. You have got to be ''fucking kidding'' me. Wow. What a horribly ''bad'' idea. I can't believe any arbitrator is even ''considering'' this. Y'know, why don't you just ''really'' shit on White Cat *and* ] and make Jack Merridew an arbitrator while you're at it? Jack Merridew would be a great arbitrator — he's obviously good at manipulating you clowns. How can you people be so fucking stupid? Y'know, that may be too salty. Can I get a mentor pretty please? This isn't just about the constant stalking. This isn't just about the constant socking. This isn't just about the constant lying about the socking. | |||
| Please, come to your senses and look at , , , and also ] (I know it may be the first time for some of you). Search for "Jack Merridew" on the E&C2 workshop page and think about what you'd be doing. Pay special attention to and keep in mind Jack Merridew's later . After I made a to add Jack Merridew as an involved party of E&C2, he responded with insults and by following me to AFDs. This isn't just about harassment of White Cat (although that ''really'' should be enough, don't you think?) This isn't just about the constant lying. If you unblock David aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew, you might as well open ] now (and proceed to sit on your thumbs for 3 months). Now let me tell you a story. | |||
| Once upon a time, a woman named ], ]'s Minister Counsellor in ], who administered aid from Australia to Indonesia, boarded ] in ] and when it went to land on March 7, 2007 in ] ] at ], it overran the end of the runway and crashed and burst into flames and she died, along with 20 other people. Two months after the crash, David (aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 aka Senang Hati aka Moby Dick aka Diyarbakir aka Davenbelle aka Note to Cool Cat aka Thomas Jerome Newton aka Jack Merridew) from ] (or a ] near Bali), who started editing October 31 2004, who has in the past repaired the roof on the ], and was perhaps momentarily bored of stalking White Cat at the time, wrote an article about her and it was ]. In anger, instead of improving the article, he then sought to delete every article related to "pop culture" he could find (although I don't really see how that fits with David's problem with ""). Congratulations David! Now when anyone wants to learn about D&D, Wikia thanks you for the page views! For his all-around assholery, David received and impersonators. I guess harassment begets harassment. | |||
| At one point, after he had gotten his lulz, Jack Merridew to being Davenbelle and he was blocked indefinitely. In March 2008, David asked that the article about Allison Sudradjat be placed in his userspace and David finally decided to improve it. Casliber placed it in the mainspace and Pegasus deleted it under ]. Casliber took it to in April 2008 and the article was re-created. Am I warm so far David? Or are you full under a bridge somewhere? After the ] and ] articles were improved, perhaps David is less bitter now and trusts in the ] on Misplaced Pages. However, why should ''anyone'' trust David after the unmitigated bullshit he has pulled? You do not trust people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy over and over and over again. Fool Arbcom once, twice, three times...how many times does it take? Seriously? David sure isn't making the ] look any better. If I ever get in a plane crash in Indonesia and end up paralyzed, I'll be sure to go to the Senang Hati Foundation for my free wheelchair and complimentary stalker. | |||
| What are the risks of unblocking Jack Merridew? What are the benefits? Are there ''any''? How could you even consider an unblock without a topic ban in fiction? If Jack Merridew is unblocked, that is a clear message by the arbitration committee that ] means fuck all, that users can do anything they want and always be forgiven, and that ArbCom is a joke — just in time for the ]. Yeah, unblock Jack Merridew right before the elections where White Cat is running. White Cat's the pig! Run White Cat run! --] (]) 12:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| <small> I did some minor clerking on this case before hand, but I have recused myself from further such edits, this is a personal opinion</small> | |||
| I am not familiar with the gory details of this case but I take the following two things as fact: | |||
| # Jack Merridew has harassed White cat | |||
| # White cat has in good faith stated he would not be able to turn to Moreschi for help concerning this matter. | |||
| That there has been harassment is a serious problem, and needs to be dealt with the utmost of caution. That we see the ability of any editor to reform is noble, enacting this belief with caution would be most wise. Using a mentor-cum-watch dog is sensible, but it is certainly not sensible to use a mentor that the victim of harassment doesn't trust. This would be roughly equivlent to having a stalker's parole officer be the ex-spouse of the stalkee. I make no comment here on Moreschi's actual ability or lack thereof, I am simply pointing out without White cat trusting Moreschi, this rehabilitation is too dangerous and prone to spectacular failure. Unless the mentoring position is given to (a) individual(s) White cat can trust, these motions should not pass.--] (]) 17:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :To Lar: In this case White cat is a wronged party and Jack Merridew has already breached community standards. He is essentially our equivalent of a felon, or at least an undesirable, so his concerns on who his mentor is are of very little weight compared to White cat. Do either of them get a veto? No. Is it a good idea to go against the victim's wishes? Also no. If we accept the possibility that harassment could reoccur, we accept that we need to actively monitor for it. The primary way to detect harassment is by the complaints of the victim, (even when every on wiki communication is logged, there is off wiki communication and information overload to worry about) and if White cat won't report, we've cut out the principle source of information.--] (]) 18:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :And as far as precedent goes, I think its a good precedent to show that Arbcom is attentive to all the nuances of a situation.--] (]) 18:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::FloNight, since there is a pending clarification on Everyking below that states flatly that Arbcom election voting and question are exceptions to the "No comments on" restriction, it would probably be a good idea to explicitly restrict Jack Merridew from voting or posing questions on White Cat's current and/or future elections. | |||
| ::On a related note, it may be worthwhile to deny Jack Merridew suffrage in this election entirely. The timing of this coming up shortly before an election unfortunate and the denial of suffrage is harsh, but I remind everyone that Jack Merridew was ] for harassing another user and there are few more serious breaches of community standards. It is also clear that not all of the community is willing to forgive and forget just yet. Jack Merridew quite frankly, has to earn community trust again, something that will be considerably easier for all involved after the elections are over.--] (]) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::To Lar: (I think the dialogue is productive for the consumption of the public and the Arbitration Committee, but I'll be happy to also do it else where if you wish) Disenfranchising someone is very serious, and given the opportunity to decide it, I'm not sure if I would. I do think however, that the kind of harassment we're talking about here makes it an option worth considering. Suffrage is at the most basic level a way of saying someone is a fully fledged community member and conversely, being disenfranchised is a way for the community to set certain users apart. It is an ugly mark to bear, but Jack Merridew has earned it. Whether or not it is necessary, proper, or proportionate, I do not know, I will defer to those more familiar with the case than I. | |||
| :::As to the mentor issue, multiple mentors is of course the way to go, and if it is genuinely hard to find say, three upstanding community members able and willing to ride herd over Jack Merridew that White cat also is comfortable with, then sure, the Arbitration Committee should simply press forward. I do not however believe that there are significant practical problems of finding mentors who are acceptable. | |||
| :::What is left is the philosophical issue of whether or not Arbitration should allow any user to veto a mentoring structure, in substance or appearance. While the Arbitration Committee must make the best decision free of the whims of any one editor, it should likewise not make decisions simply to contradict the whims of any one editor, it would not only be counterproductive, but it would be petty as well. | |||
| :::We must finally remember that this "veto" from White cat is not a whim, demand, or opinion, but an involved editor showing us a genuine roadblock. Imagine for a moment that an outside editor, you or me, had pointed out that white cat had conflicts with Moreschi in the past, and that White cat would be unable to communicate effectively if he were harassed. The implications of the point raised are the same, and have practical consequences. Merely because it was White cat who brought it up doesnot make it any more or less true, and it is the point itself, not who brought it up, that should determine the course of action. In summary, if at all possible, lets find some more mentors that White cat is likely to trust and get this show on the road.--] (]) 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| I support Jack Merridew being mentored by Casliber, but I also strongly recommend a ban from AfDs (way too much dishonest use of ] style of non-arguments) and instead advise that he focus on constructive article development for which I would be willing to colloborate. Just as I have avoided commenting in AfDs for some time now, anyone else should have no problem taking a step back as well as that was clearly one of Jack's conflict areas and for his own good, he would be wise to avoid areas where he is likely to run into conflicts. Actually, it's probably best that the more pollarizing and controversial figures step back from commenting in those discussions and focus on article development anyway as there are plenty of other non-controversial editors who can comment one way or the other. Best, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Clearly arbcom have not been reading their mail. No interaction or public commenting on White Cat was already explicitly agreed upon in the discussions which have been cced to arbcom-l. By all means vote on it formally, but we had already thought of this one. Otherwise, I will simply limit myself to pointing out that JM is a reasonable fellow, he can be kept away from White Cat, and that I am fully committed to doing so for his own benefit and for that of the encyclopedia. Yours, ] (]) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| This is one of the only things where I wind up aligning with Pixelface and White Cat. Jack maintained a pattern of deceptive behaviour that lasted for years. It wasn't just passive deception, either: he actively lied to all of us. We always need good editors, but there is no need to welcome back the chronically deceitful.—](]) 03:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| He is doing good work on other Wikimedia projects? Good, he can continue to do so. But he has used all chances he deserved here, and more. I don't understand the bending over backwards to give some people an umpteenth chance. What message are we supposed to be giving here? Keep him banned from en.wikipedia ad infinitum, and don't waste anymore time on chronic trouble makers. ] (]) 09:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| ; Statement re Jack Merridew ban review motion | |||
| It is fully my intent to comply with the terms proposed. Since I was en:blocked, I have discussed the situation with a variety of experienced editors. I have made ] much appreciated edits to projects other than en:wp; I have more edits elsewhere, than here. I have found the experience on the wider gamut of projects enlightening. I expect to keep a significant focus on the other projects. | |||
| I have no issue with FT2's amendments; it has been understood all through these discussions that further interaction is the issue here. I will leave it to others. As to the AC elections, no, my appeal is not motivated by any particular candidacy; as John says, it predates. I have no intention of making the given oppose; it would only serve to inflame. I do object to a complete disfranchisement. I've seen the current discussion re Everyking and what seems a similar situation and I do not feel that my otherwise participating in the process is inappropriate. If such an ] is passed, I will abide by it. It would, however, be a poor precedent to set. | |||
| Please noted that; | |||
| * ] | |||
| remains in effect; this has been discussed in emails and should be a part of this. | |||
| Cheers, ] 07:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ; addendum; | |||
| re: Moreschi's role: | |||
| The term 'mediator' has leaked into the discussion; Moreschi's role is as a mentor to (and monitor of) me, not as a mediator between White Cat and myself. My discussions with Moreschi about this whole situation go back to March. I don't really know just what the dynamic between Moreschi and White Cat is; sure, I have seen bits of disagreement, but nothing much, really. I see the concern about this as moot; if White Cat has a concern down the road, there are 1,600+ admins he could consult, and there's the AC itself. FWIW, when he was placed under mentorship, his mentors included Tony Sidaway who was not a disinterested party. | |||
| re: FloNight's and FT2's discussion: | |||
| This seems to me to be an internal issue about the AC's role spilling out. It is certainly true that a large volume of counsel resides in my inbox; I've read things carefully and believe that I've gotten the appropriate take-away. | |||
| re Pixelface: | |||
| Oh, dear, good show. Thank you for reminding me that ] , too. | |||
| Cheers, ] 05:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| Browsing Misplaced Pages (still on holiday) I happened to spot this case. I've some history here, having witnessed the harassment of White Cat by Jack Merridew under his various socks for what amounts to White Cat's entire history of editing Misplaced Pages. | |||
| A last chance is deserved by someone who has come clean about matters he previously concealed, denied or equivocated about, and who wishes to do good work. But please, let it be the ''last'' chance. Merridew's persistent and malicious harassment of White Cat for more than three years shows that he has an obsessive streak, and White Cat was for too long almost alone in bearing the weight of this obsession. Let Misplaced Pages be clear: the slightest sign of a return to past form must be the end of Merridew's career. --] 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| *Minor formatting changes made to text of motion, would arbiter please review to ensure no meaning was accidentally lost, changed, or added.--] (]) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Recuse from further clerking, will be adding comment as editor.--] (]) 16:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Even if the motion get enough supports to pass, please do not close the motion and make it actionable until you hear from an arbitrator that more mentors have been selected. ]] 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| * After reading the suggestion for handling the case, I'm proposing a motion here (Clarifications and other requests section of the RFArb main page), and then announcing the proposed motion on AN. Since the precipitate for the last ban was socking in violation of an ArbCom sanction, ArbCom is the venue for a ban review. But in this instance, White Cat and the rest of the Community should have the opportunity to give the Committee feedback before the close of the Committee's vote. There is no need for privacy in this case and maximum transparency will serve the best interest of the Community in this situation. | |||
| *The editing restricts were written based on the comments of the above administrators and have been previewed by ArbCom. The main purpose of the mentorship is monitoring Jack Merridew's account for any editing that will bring Merridew into contact with White Cat. No topic restrictions are spelled out in the restrictions but potential topics for problem editing have been identified and will be monitored. ]] 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **White Cat, I showed you the proposed motion before I posted it so that you could make suggestions. I wish that you would have let me know about your strong view about Moreschi during our chat so we could have addressed then. Adding several more mentors will be a good approach since it is something that was going to happen in an informal manner, anyway. As stated by others, this request for a ban review pre-dates White Cat's announced candidacy so I don't see that as a particular issue in this situation. Since Merridew can't make comment about White Cat, then voting would be out of the question. ]] 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * <p>This is a banned user appeal where the Arbitration Committee are acting as route of last appeal. "JM" has a long and serious history of harassment, leading to a ban. The question is, can he decide to avoid White Cat now, and can conditions be crafted that ensure he is non-disruptive if given the chance. Those are fair questions; if the disruption has a fair chance of ending, then fine. If it were to be trialled and it were found that he cannot or would not, then the ban would (and should) be reinstated. Because harassment can be as simple as subtle digs, appearing on the same pages, and so on, the only condition that makes sense is complete avoidance of anything that might even slightly give that appearance - and the responsibility for ensuring that, to be ''JM's alone''.</p><p>Users are banned (by the community or Arbcom) usually for serious and persistent behavior issues. When a user has a long term ban (say 3-6 months or more), and behaves during it, then in most cases they may eventually be trialled back as part of the community. This is not a green light for disruption. '''Relapse risk must be considered, as must the higher barrier for continued trust in their reformation if there were evidence of relapse.''' Unbans in these conditions should contain some form of strong probation/mentoring if there is any risk of relapse, and a clear understanding that if the behavior resumes, then the ban may very easily be reinstated. This helps them (boundaries), their victims or users the conduct impacts on (deterrent), and the community/project (avoids issues of huge legalisms if they do begin to game or relapse). In brief, a user who is banned, is given ] trust that they will behave from now on, but is also "on ice" for a long time after, may be more at risk of resumption, and must make sure that the old behaviors are history, as the "unban" hopes that they are. If they do not, then they must expect a reblock/reban may have a '''much lower "bar"''' (and unblocking a higher "bar") than it would for a fresh user without such history.</p><p>Having discussed this internally, I am content to give JM a try at unban. However I also feel the unban conditions are grossly inadequate and do not protect White Cat from harassment, the community from resumption, or make it direct or simple enough that a relapse will mean the ban resumes. I therefore propose a further motion 2 which is in addition to motion 1, to remedy these. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)</p> | |||
| ==== Motion to lift User:Jack Merridew's indefinite block and editing restrictions. ==== | |||
| 1) After reviewing User:Jack Merridew's ban at his request, the | |||
| Arbitration Committee agrees to unblock his account with the following | |||
| conditions: | |||
| *1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis and unifies that account. (already done) | |||
| *2. User:Jack Merridew discloses all prior socks. (already done). | |||
| *3. User:Jack Merridew agrees to not edit using open proxies. | |||
| *4. User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Misplaced Pages English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner. | |||
| *5. User:Jack Merridew agrees to avoid all disruptive editing. | |||
| *6. User:Jack Merridew agrees to a one year mentorship by Moreschi who will closely monitor for any contact with White Cat. | |||
| *7. It is specifically noted that this is not a "clear your name" unblock, but rather is done on the recommendation of Misplaced Pages English administrators that are knowledgeable about Jack Merridew's past disruptive editing and now support his return based on his good editing record on other Foundation wikis where White Cat and Jack Merridew both have accounts. | |||
| *8. Should Jack Merridew violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at ] | |||
| :''There are 12 active Arbitrators with respect to this motion, so a majority is 7 (assuming no abstentions).'' | |||
| Support: | |||
| :# After reviewing the comments of all involved users, I support lifting the ban with these strict editing restrictions. It is my sincere hope that Jack Merridew will honor his promise to stay away from White Cat and over time White Cat will be able to move past the his current understandable suspicions and worries be able to edit with less stress than he's had during the past few years. ]] 23:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# '''If and only if''' 2 and (probably) 3 both pass. Otherwise strong oppose. We should only unban serious past harassment risks if administrator concerns about a relapse or breach of unban conditions will be taken <u>very</u> seriously. We should paint in the clearest black and white what the returning user must (not) do, to reduce the risk of ambiguity, gaming, or fault-shifting. If Jack Merridew is truly sincere, then these will present no problem to him and he will understand why they are required. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support. --] <small>]</small> 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support. This is a difficult issue but I find myself on balance agreeing with John Vandenberg that Jack Merridew has done enough to warrant a final chance. The conditions imposed here are among the most onerous the committee has ever imposed. ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I find this to be an ''extremely'' difficult call. I accept the assurances of those, including my fellow arbitrators, who report that Jack Merridew has done good work on other projects. I have also carefully reviewed the e-mails that this user has sent to the committee containing seemingly sincere assurances of good conduct going forward. However, it cannot be denied that the conduct in which Jack Merridew engaged was vicious and egregious. The record reflects that this user persisted in intentionally seeking to ruin the Misplaced Pages experience of a chosen victim over a period of years, for no particular reason other than that this fellow-user seemed easy to get a rise out of, plus had different views from JM on some policy/deletion issues. To this end, Jack Merridew engaged in a persistent and varied pattern of misconduct, including but not limited to incivility, trolling, "wikihounding" (f/k/a wikistalking), serial sockpuppetry, and making intentionally false statements to the Arbitration Committee. Not only did White Cat have to expend considerable time over the years in dealing with the mess and compiling evidence, but many administrators and arbitrators did as well; and White Cat's relations with other editors were damaged as they came to Jack Merridew's defense and accused White Cat of "paranoia" and the like for making allegations that turned out to be entirely justified and true. To his credit, Jack Merridew eventually, if most belatedly, confessed to his misconduct and stepped away from Misplaced Pages. As noted, his work elsewhere has earned him a final chance to return. We can accept nothing less than the complete avoidance of any conduct that could reasonably be perceived as harassment of White Cat or any other user, now and permanently. ] (]) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oppose: | |||
| :# | |||
| Abstain: | |||
| :# | |||
| 2) In the event that Jack Merridew is blocked by any administrator for a matter relating to breach of the above terms, any unblock is only to be decided by consent of this Committee, following any communal discussion in ]. | |||
| ::{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Rationale | |||
| |- | |||
| | Unblock "gaming", or uninformed/low-] unblocking, are unfortunately far more common these days. If a user is banned for serious harassment, unblocked on trial, and then behaves in a way that any administrator feels a reblock is necessary, then that is not a block I would condone being reversed without the committee having the opportunity to consider the behavior first, in light of what we know of the harassment case history, and any promises made. | |||
| |} | |||
| Support: | |||
| :# ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I think that the community is perfectly capable of handling the unblock requests of someone that is blocked for harassment. But at the same time, it's perfectly acceptable for us to monitor this. --] <small>]</small> 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support; I hope this procedure never happens. ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oppose: | |||
| :# <p>First, I don't think that special enforcement is needed in this situation. It is significant to note that no admin unblocked the Jack Merridew account despite it not having a special enforcement clause as proposed. If you look through the block log, everyday admin block accounts for harassment and personal attacks. Admins are sensitive to these issues and deal with them regularly. The indefinite block on the Jack Merridew account was done during a Community discussion so there was some ambiguity about how this unblock request should be handled. During a discussion about how to handle this unblock request several ideas were suggested with all of them being reasonable ways to address it. I decided to make it a formal ArbCom ban review instead of having one of the involved admins open an unblock discussion at AN. I did this because I think that AE is a better venue for handling any question about enforcing the sanction or re-writing them if needed.</p><p>Second, the Committee does not have a good track record for managing our cases load in a prompt manner. Until we address this problem, I'm not in favor of excluding alternative methods of handling a situation unless there is an absolute reason for doing it (such as an privacy issue or extraordinarily sensitive issues such as pedophilia related account blocks.)</p><p>Third, alternative methods of dealing with unblock requests need to be addressed in a more systematic way with the Community. An ban review committee or another alternative way to comprehensively address the growing backlog of requests. Each of these cases deserve to have the attention of experienced impartial users who can craft editing restrictions that will be enforced. This is not something that the Committee should be doing on a regular basis because it is too time consuming.</p><p>Fourth, if an individual administrator is using their tools outside of Community norms then it needs to be addressed with them in a direct way. If there is wide spread disagreement in the general Community and among admins about whether a block is appropriate, heavy handed enforcement is usually not the best approach for the Committee to use since the default should be less enforcement not more.</p><p>Fifth, more comprehensive discussions about how to handle the different types of harassment, wikihounding, and bullying need to occur in appropriate venues on site.</p><p>Last, the Committee needs to guard against putting in place provisions that might lead to more insular thinking. We need to make sure that our policies and practices do not make it more difficult for the Community to reverse a poorly written decision. ]] 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :#:: Whether or not it may have been needed in past reviews of this user,<ol><li>I do not know whether it will be needed in future ones. There are strong communal concerns (see above), and when it comes to a serious harassment case I want the ability to put a foot on the brake with no risk of gaming, "unblock pile-on" or the like, if there were a potential problem, until we have reviewed the incident.</li><li>I emphatically don't accept "we're too busy" as an excuse for not giving the project an a harassed user the appropriate level of protection - if that is so then we'll just have to make time when it comes up, as we did for this appeal.</li><li>If processes change then good; this is not a "usual case", it is a serious harassment case, and needs unusual safeguards in place. </li><li> (4 onwards) The community has had consensus on poor unblocks before. Not one thing you've said explains how you will prevent gaming, politicizing or pile-ons of an unwise unblock if some admins decide to do this.</li></ol>To underline the issue, this is a user with a past history of serious harassment. We are trialling his reintroduction to the community. If he acts well (as we hope) then thsi is academic. If not, then this is very far from academic indeed, given the activity surrounding some other unblock AE cases. In brief - I disagree completely with your line of thinking. Rosy glasses and "it'll all work out anyway" are no substitute for being a bit blunt at times and allowing for the prevention of plausible unban problems. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#:::You might be making some false assumptions about how the situation will play out. There is a danger that the Community left to there own devises would have decided to keep him blocked but the Committee might vote to reverse the block. After we unblock, there may be bad will between the Committee and users that feel that their concerns were not addressed. This just as likely to happen as the reverse. This error would not happen if the Community is permitted to do the initial review. I strongly prefer to keep to our ordinary role of assisting in settling disputes when the Community can not decide and some mechanism must be used to settle the situation. It is not our place to substitute our opinion for the Community's. ]] 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I largely agree with Flo. Further, as I have elsewhere indicated, if there is a culture problem in relation to unblocking, then that ought to be dealt with directly; trying to evade it indirectly by some preemptive flanking manoeuvre is unlikely to be productive. --] (]) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Abstain: | |||
| :# I have no strong view one way or the other on this issue. ] (]) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 3) Condition 4 is amended to add the following explicit clarifications: | |||
| : <p>"User:Jack Merridew agrees to completely avoid White Cat on Misplaced Pages English pages. No editing the same pages, no comments about White Cat by name or innuendo. No harassment of White Cat in other venues. This restriction will be interpreted in the broadest way with no allowance for any attempt to skirt the restriction in any manner."</p><p>"In particular, if White Cat is editing a page, Jack Merridew is responsible for not editing that page, its closely related pages, or commencing editing on closely related topics elsewhere. If it is a well known page such as ANI, and both have genuinely valid reasons for editing it, Jack Merridew is responsible for ensuring he edits it only on a matter different from, and with timing or manner that has no connection to, any of White Cat's posts there."</p> | |||
| ::{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" | |||
| |- | |||
| ! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | Rationale | |||
| |- | |||
| | Clarification, anti-ambiguity, and anti-gaming on the main condition #4. | |||
| |} | |||
| Support: | |||
| :# ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 03:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] <small>]</small> 08:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] (]) 11:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Oppose: | |||
| :#As discussed on the mailing list, the editor has been counseled about his editing restrictions in an much more extensive manner than this extra wording adds. In general extra wording on our cases leads to more confusion and adds to the potential for wiki-lawyering. ]] 16:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#:: Again, the point slips. A concern is expressed about conditions, your response is we don't need to set conditions because the editor has been "counselled". This (off-wiki) "counselling" carries minimal weight, and be far more open to disputing or "disagreeing about what lines were drawn", than a plain and direct statement of clarification, if there were a problem. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 23:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#:::The comments by people looking at the editing restrictions prior to my posting them did not suggest that more details were needed. You were the only person out of 20+ people reading them that suggested and supported this change in wording. Traditionally Misplaced Pages has used less details in policy and sanctions because real life experience shows trying to nails down details with wordy passages causes more problems than it prevents. This point was made to you by another arbitrator to you during ArbCom's discussion of the proposal. So that was the reason that I did not change the wording that you suggested and instead suggested that you offer it as an alternative if you still thought it was needed. The role of the mentor(s) is to counsel the editor. There has been a large amount of discussion with Merridew in anticipation of this request. Past and ongoing counseling by a mentor is a necessary part of this situation. I have confidence that the mentor(s) will set good guidelines for him. ]] 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Per vote on #2 above, per Flo's comments, and per my comments elsewhere. The present wording already indicates that the restriction is to be read as broadly as possible, and that is sufficient. --] (]) 11:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Abstain: | |||
| :# Arguably redundant, arguably harmless. I have made my points to Jack Merridew above. ] (]) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ===Request to vacate ] case=== | |||
| ''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:'' | |||
| * {{userlinks|Shoemaker's Holiday}} (initiator) | |||
| * Arbcom | |||
| I've also notified a couple people who were tangentally involved, they can decide if they wish to add their names. ] (]) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by ] ==== | |||
| A few months ago, Newyorkbrad encouraged me to open a new request related to the core of this case, but the wounds were too raw, and I was unable to set out my evidence calmly at that time, so delayed. | |||
| I ask that we reopen the matter now. | |||
| In this case, the arbcom, while I was suffering from severe depression, illness, and on the verge of nervous breakdown from the monetary situation at the time - I was literally faced with being homeless - opened a case with no prior dispute resolution - I had never had so much as an RfC on me - and chose me to be a test case. In the end, combined with the other events, this forced me to drop out of university. I left Misplaced Pages over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of ], ] and a few others that brought me back after several months. | |||
| A sitting arbitrator launched a campaign of harrassment throughout the case pages, unchecked by the other arbitrators. Here are some samples. This all took place over a ''single bad block'', made two months before the Arbcom case was opened. | |||
| In the initial lead in to the case, I had offered to let Charles Matthews take over the block, in e-mail, because there was no way that I could review it competently at that point in time. He said that was "not good enough", so I put it up on ANI. | |||
| Charles Matthews specifically says at one point that my refusal to simply to defer to his judgement is why he opened this case and pushed so hard for my desysopping: | |||
| : | |||
| As he did not get my consent immediately (though I did unblock in the end), Charles Matthews then launched a campaign of harassment against me, using the power of the Arbitration committee to harass without fear of rebuttal. A complete read through of the case pages would be necessary to see this in full, so I'll just give a couple typical comments by Charles. | |||
| *] 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)] (and that in response to an appeal by Carcharoth that he calm down!) | |||
| *] | |||
| His harassment was not devoted to me, he also referred to other editors in the same over-the top terms: | |||
| * | |||
| To quote MastCell's response to the last: | |||
| {{Cquote|[http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#Charles_Matthews_has_failed_to_assume_good_faith Since this case seems to be focusing an unusually intense magnifying glass on the minor failings of everyone even peripherally involved (see Chaser above), it seems fair to note that describing an established, good-faith editor as a "meddling hypocrite, at best" is remarkably poor conduct for anyone involved in an arbitration, much less an sitting Arbitrator. Unless that makes me a meddling hypocrite as well. MastCell Talk 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ... and really. Describing someone as a "busybody" and a "meddling hypocrite" for voicing an opinion on a block at WP:AN/I? What sort of message are we aiming for here? MastCell Talk 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)] | |||
| }} | |||
| However, Charles did not act alone, he was aided and abbetted by the other arbitrators, who actively defended his right to harrass me: | |||
| * "]" - Uninvited Company, 20 December. | |||
| * "]" | |||
| Furthermore, the arbitrators were clearly not interested in anything I had to say in my defense: | |||
| The case opened on 17:40, 2 December 2007 . Within 13 hours of this, and before I had had the chance to provide a single word of evidence in my defense, Uninvited Company set out proposed decisions saying , , . | |||
| The problems with this case have been pointed out for several months, but the Arbcom have refeused to deal with it, even to simply remove the harrassing comments by Charles Matthews. | |||
| A proposal I made during the case that I be desysopped immediately, in exchange for the case stopping, because of the health and RL problems being severely aggravated by having this case going on as well, was rejected by the Arbcoim in favour of dragging it out, coninuing the case, then opening an RFC. However, in July, the personal details I had volunteered in an attempt to get them to agree to my proposal were thrown back in my face: | |||
| ''"Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems." - Morven, on ], 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC), seconded by Kirill. '' | |||
| The arbcom have very consciously put me in a situation where only a full discussion of my private problems will prevent them from using them to say that the community is unable to comment on my situation, and that they should have the sole right to discuss what should be done with me. I do not trust myself to comment on their behaviour regarding that matter. Suffice to say that when I DID make a disclosure of some of the health problems of that time, e-mails I received from them afterwards criticised me for not being detailed enough, because I had still wished to maintain some sense of privacy. | |||
| Other users have agreed that there are problems with this case: | |||
| {{cquote|1= | |||
| }} | |||
| Likewise ], ], and numerous others, see the last third of the Proposed decision talk page. | |||
| I do not care about getting my adminship back, and I accept that the block was incorrect. However, for my own mental health, I want to put this behind me. Likewise, the campaign of harassment is a blight on the arbcom, and I ask the arbcom to vacate it, in full. As it stands, this case remaining is a statement that, if you upset an Arbitrator, the Arbcom reserves the right to open a "test case" against you with mno proevious dispute resolution, and allow the arbitrator to harass you off the site. | |||
| Furthermore, the Arbcom's self-regulation is clearly not working. A basic principle needs to be put in place that all Arbcom decisions can be appealed by the community. | |||
| For obvious reasons, I will be crossposting to ], as I'm afraid that for some reason, I don't really trust the arbcom to judge this case fairly. | |||
| Thank you, | |||
| ], a.k.a. Vanished user. 14:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| P.S. If the committee would like, I can send them copies of some of the e-mails I got from Charles, or provide other evidence. | |||
| '''Response to Tznkai:''' | |||
| :I am requesting the entire case be declared a miscarriage of justice, or, in less inflammatory language, a mistake. That doesn't mean the actions would necessarily be reversed, e.g. me getting sysop back, but the pages should be blanked or something, and the decisions declared no longer part of Arbcom case law. At this point, any other action validates the three-month harassment I went through as part of this case. ] (]) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Response to Kirril:''' | |||
| Just blank all the pages and leave a note saying it's been withdrawn. That, or something similar, would be sufficient. There's some very nasty stuff on there. I am sorry about this, and I had really hoped we could have dealt with this less publicly, but, well, now that it has been, it's hard to see any other path forwards... ] (]) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Response to Sam''' | |||
| In this case, the findings of an arbcom-initiated RfC ] were overturned to make a provisional desysop. I am not asking for adminship back and am fully aware that under the current RfA culture I probably never will. What I am asking is for the committee to accept that keeping up an attack piece, where a sitting arbitrator calls people "moral midgets", "dogs", and worse, and in which they harassed a user into a complete breakdown, and ''then in July unethically used confidential information about that user's health to continue their harassment'' is something they should not be doing. | |||
| What, precisely, in the current decision is so important that it must remain a year afterwards, and how does it justify the gross personal attacks, harassment, and other such things? The only thing that would change by this case being vacated, is that, if I triedd to run an RfA - which I would of course, have no chance of passing, the Arbcom, out of concern for my mental health, would not be able to villify and continue their harassment, by pretending to know anything about my current state of mental health, now that I am not facing being homeless and starving to death, because they knew what my mental health was like when both those things were true. I will urther add that the committee ignored all this information about my health during the case, but only gave any sign they had any knowledge of it at the point they used it to attack me. | |||
| The Arbcom has violated my privacy, been part of a harassment campaign against me, and, in July, insisted that I must make a public statement of my private medical details or they would continue holding power over me forever. Show some basic ethics, and stop trying to justify the harassment. The Arbcom has violated basic confidentiality by snidely revealing my health details in July in such a way to make things sound even worse, forcing me to reveal them. Please stop compounding your offenses and let's make a full break with the past, so we can all move on. The longer the Arbcom continues to defend their past bad actions, the more these actions begin to look less like mistakes, and more like intent. ] (]) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :However, I am willing to have Newyorkbrad or FT2 as a mentor if that will help ease the committee's misgivings about making the basic ethical decision. | |||
| '''Second response to Sam''' | |||
| Very well, let's put it aside. You have evidently not looked at the remedies in the case, or it would have been clear that there is very, very little that would be overturned The only restriction that came out of that case was my desysop, (which would not change) and the right to regain the sysop after 6 months by appeal to the committee, with a probation to follow. FT2's commentary makes it clear that this was intended to protect me, in order to assure that I can get adminship back again. | |||
| The actual change in consequences is only to remove a proposal that was intended to make sure I could get Adminship back, which I do not want because it involves the Arbcom, and, after what has happened to me in regards to the Arbcom... Well, let's end this statement here. ] (]) 13:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''Per Kirril's Motion''' | |||
| :I am willing to be bound by an informal agreement that I will consult the committee, and, perhaps even seek a mentor in order to prepare myself, should I wish to seek adminship. ] (]) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''To FT2''' | |||
| There had never been an RfC, and no real hint that I was doing anything wrong. Had either of those happened, I would probably have agreed to be much more careful. This is why Arbcom is meant to be the LAST resort in dispute resolution, not the first. | |||
| Let's review the finding of facts you mention | |||
| '''Finding of fact #3''' | |||
| justify his block of MatthewHoffman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) include claims of harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism... None of these claims are borne out by a review of Hoffman's contributions. | |||
| He was clearly a POV-pusher. No reasonable person would deny that. The issue was that there was not sufficient time given to demonstrate a problematic pattern of POV pushing | |||
| As for the rest, as described ], I missed some context that mitigated his comments, but there was, at least, rudeness and attacks on others, justified by the context of a grand battle. I looked at diffs, and failed to consider the full context, and, in the typical manner this case was handled, all these mitigating factors were thrown out, even to the point of claiming he was not a POV pusher. | |||
| '''Finding of Fact #4''' | |||
| 4) Vanished user's block of Matthew Hoffman for 72 hours, and the subsequent extension of the block to make it indefinite, were both outside blocking policy. The reasoning used to justify the blocks was fallacious, and Vanished user was involved in a content dispute with Hoffman. Further, the justification for the blocks in part is to encourage Hoffman to "cool down," which contravenes blocking policy. | |||
| ''This contains an utter untruth''': I had not edited Irreducible complexity since January, as a search of the page history will show. In order to claim I was in a content dispute with him required claiming that having ever expressed any opinion o a subject, even before you became an admin, worked out to a content dispute. Secondly, only blocks with the sole purpose to make people cool down is outside policy. ] makes this very explicit: | |||
| :''Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.'' | |||
| The emphasis is in the original. Indeed, the block policy also makes a clear distinction between content disputes and conflict of interest, and, while the latter is discouraged, is not actually forbidden.: | |||
| :''Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.'' | |||
| FT2 asks for evidence that the decisions made about the Hoffman block were unreasonable. The committtee scraped the bottom of the barrel in order to justify a finding that I was in an active content dispute with Hoffman, mentioning a 7 month old edit to the page as proof. Carcharioth lays out a time scale here ], I presume that, ignoring the actual dates, this is what the Arbcom used to justify its claims of a content dispute. | |||
| In short, the heart of the Arbcom decision with regard to the Hoffman matter - which FT2 declares unassailable - is based on a claimed direct violation of policy that never happened. This was pointed out at the time, , , etc. - FloNight even responded to a seperate point in the first post. The Arbcom pressed forwards with this anyway, enshrining a lie into a decision about me. | |||
| '''Finding of Fact 9.1''' | |||
| This finding implies there's a lot more that could be found, when, in fact, it is the result of an exhaustive review of every admin action I had made, thus making it almost certainly a complete list of what could possibly be found. Every single one of my blocks was reviewed on the evidence page of the Hoffman case, and Kirril can confirm whether he analysed all page protections, but given Finding of Fact #9 taking examples from my entire time as an admin, that's probably the case. If this is, in fact, all there was - and all evidence points to that - it is a much weaker finding than is implied by its similarities to similar findings of this type. Exhaustive or reasonably exhaustive searches should really be clearly labelled as such, anything else will be read as a representative set. | |||
| Furthermore, while at least some of the decisions were mistakes, there were mitigating factors: | |||
| * Let's have a look at one of these in detail: | |||
| ''semi-protected Homeopathy a second time, citing IP "vandalism". A review of IP activity from Nov 27 - 30 2007 shows the edits related to POV differences and minor edits, not vandalism (WP:VAND refers)...'' | |||
| However, let's have a look at 25 November: | |||
| * - Vandalism by 202.168.239.186 | |||
| * Vandalism by 75.153.9.52 | |||
| * Vandalism by 90.203.64.154 | |||
| * Further vandalism by 90.203.64.154 | |||
| * Vandalism by 81.86.135.171 | |||
| All of these are oobviously and unambiguously vandalism. | |||
| There might have been an arguement that the vandalism was not recent enough to justify semi-protection, however, the finding of fact says there was ''no'' vandalism, and claims that "The effect was to exclude IP editors with whom he disagreed as well as IP editors adding valid formatting edits." - implying that was my intent, when a review that covered just a two more days would have shown multi-IP vandalism and people having difficulty getting the reversion levels correct, reverting some of the vandalism, but not all. In a poorly-monitored subject, as Homeopathy was, this is problematic. | |||
| We could review the others. These had never appeared in evidence, and, by the time they appeared on the finding page, my health had crashed so far and, the arbcom having ignored all my previous comments, it did not seem that the arbcom cared what had to be said. Clearly, some more care would have prevented an appearance of conflict of interest, however, I was literally the only admin watching many of these pages, and most administrators had been scared off of all action on those pages, due to the poor editing environments there. Conflict of interest might have been an issue, but remember that the Arbcom case was the first procedural discussion of conflict of interest related to me, had any other dispute resolution occurred, I would have very likely accepted the problem and stopped doing the behaviours in question. The arbcom stated, upon taking the case, that the lack of any prior dispute resolution related to me would be taken into consideration. | |||
| I believe all the actions are defensible - not that they were correct, but that they were understandable mistakes, given the poor guidance I had, and that, as an inexperienced admin, I was working in one of the most contentious and poorest-monitored sections of Misplaced Pages. Had the arbcom cared to ask, I would have attempted to give my reasoning. | |||
| is what the community thought about these findings in the RfC that arbcom arranged to run, then ignored. Uninvited Company - I'm going to simplify this thread a bit, but I believe my summary is accurate - later claimed that the defense of me consisted solely of Scientific-point-of-view proponents and was thus ignored in favour of unnamed and unnumbered people who e-mailed the Arbcom in order to attack me. (Who clearly lacked a point of view?) | |||
| '''On blanking''' | |||
| I was told this would be done in February. This is far too little, far too late, and does not even deal with the errors of fact in the findings of fact mentioned above. ] (]) 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''On Flonight's proposal''' | |||
| <s>This looks fine. I might prefer it a brief statement saying the new statement replaced the previous content and decisions as well, but I think that I can bend a little bit to meet the Arbcom in the middle. ] (]) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)</s> | |||
| On thinking about this, the "no longer active" is so ambiguous that it could be read as meaning anything. If we're going to make a decision on this, it probably needs to be one that won't simply cause more confusion. ] (]) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by involved party Jehochman==== | |||
| This case was handled badly. I think it would be a very good to erase it completely, on grounds of procedural unfairness. As there is no request to restore adminship, I see that the only action required is for ArbCom to acknowledge this ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : Thebainer, the remedy sought is to have the case vacated. The person in question is '''not''' asking for their admin tools back. Given the severe incivility contained in that case (''moral pygmy'', ''meddling hypocrite''), and the very poor treatment by the Committee of the person making the request (RFAR with no prior DR, insufficient time allowed to present defenses), I think the request is reasonable. By failing to correct these problems when the request comes before you, you all assume responsibility for these events, even if you were not on the Committee at the time they occurred. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Perhaps it would be best for the Committee to pass a motion stating: 1/ personal abuse directed at named parties is denounced, 2/ you recognize that handling of the case was poor, and the Committee will endeavor to do better. Blanking the case would also be a good idea, because it is a poor example. The result can stand because nobody is disputing the outcome. I think these actions, which might appear symbolic, would have the effect of stopping further reference to the case. I for one am very tired of hearing about it. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Sam Blacketer, allowing the person in question to go back to RFA is hardly a concession. Their chances of passing RFA are dim to none. If they want tools back, the easiest way is via the Committee. Perhaps the case can be replaced with a statement that the user gave up the tools under a cloud and can get them back via RFA or appeal to the Committee. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Important note to FT2 | |||
| This case started with the posting of a remedy, before the accused had time to fully respond. Then it was suspended to run an RFC that generally opposed what the Committee was doing, ] or making one individual into an example to deter others. Then the Committee proceeded to disregard the opinions expressed in the RFC. A variety of us have asked for personal attacks within the case to be denounced or refactored. Thus far, these requests have been ignored. I am asking for two very specific things: 1/ the Committee blanks all the pages. 2/ the Committee makes a public statement recognizing the poor treatment of those involved. Public insults or abuse require a public retraction. Three wrongs don't make a right. The fact that the block was bad does not excuse Committee members to personally abuse those involved, nor does it excuse the Committee as a whole from culpability for conducting a ]. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by uninvolved party Barberio==== | |||
| The manner in which this case was accepted is at best inappropriate opening of a case without allowing it to go through normal channels of having a block overturned. At worst, it appears to be an attempt to game the system by a sitting arbitration member pushing for a speedy resolution in his favour without giving a chance for rebuttal or defence. | |||
| I'm also unsettled by the use of 'secret reasons' for the desysop and block on re-admitance. Nor does the remedy sit well with the committee's actions towards more 'establishment figure' administrators who have had similar 'isolated bad decisions'. | |||
| In my eyes, the case wasn't taken on correctly, and not enough time was given for a defence. So this case was not legitimate, and none of it's findings or remedies should be active. It should be erased and apologised for.--] (]) 15:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| =====Response to Sam Blacketer===== | |||
| With all due respect, the Arbitration process ''is'' a quasi-legal process, and claiming it isn't makes you appear to deny the reality of how your own committee works, much in the same way people claim there is no bureaucracy in Misplaced Pages. This is not unusual, quasi-legal processes exist in many associations, such as 'courts' that rule on ] motor sports rule infractions. You need to recognise that this is a quasi-legal process, and act appropriately. | |||
| So since it ''is'' a quasi-legal process, you need to make sure your actions don't prejudice someone's case, you need to be as clear and open as you can be, and you need to apply suitable fairness. | |||
| You are ''explicitly not'' the fire-fighting team tasked with making quick emergency actions. You are supposed to act deliberatively, and urgent injunctions should be ''injunctions'' not rushed ''rulings''. If you do not know the difference between an ''injunction'' and a ''ruling'' then you probably shouldn't be ruling on cases. | |||
| It is well within your power to make a temporary injunctions, and then investigate a case deliberatively. Failure to do so puts the legitimacy of the rulings at risk. --] (]) 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Additionally, it is my opinion that the current ArbCom claim they do not set precedent, while acting like the do. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the word precedent means... If you have used the same 'principles' from one case, to another, to another, that is use of precedent. This is standard practice by the ArbCom. | |||
| Again, denying you use precedents when you clearly do signals a misunderstanding of your own role. | |||
| Combined with the growing attempts to create policy, and hang 'resolutions' such as ''Motion of clarification in the Tobias Conradi case'' up as binding rulings, is troubling. --] (]) 11:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Durova==== | |||
| This request was opened overnight without my knowledge, and I read it on my first cup of coffee. In the interests of avoiding ], I urge the Committee to consider this motion. In addition to other objections, I have reason to believe the case was initiated upon misleading representations. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''Where a user is being disruptive...the key issue is the disruption...'' Sam, Shoemaker's Holiday was an administrator in good standing until this out of process case opened against him. He is now an administrator in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. He has been instrumental to getting Misplaced Pages's featured sound program off the ground, is doing stellar work for the new 'song of the day' main page section on Wikisource, and is in good standing in all other WMF projects where he participates. There has never been any formal dispute resolution action against him, except related to this case. Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed over five dozen featured content items across multiple projects. What more must a man do to demonstrate he is not disruptive, once a bad arbitration case labels him as such? | |||
| :The case was opened based upon a single month-old block which he had long since put up for noticeboard review, while he was offering to submit it for a second review. He answered all other relevant concerns to the satisfaction of community consensus, during the RFC for which the arbitration was suspended. Yet the arbitrators never substantially changed the proposed decision that had been posted in the first twelve hours of the case, before he had any chance to defend himself. Voting proceeded despite his requests for time to study for university final exams, and the time it took away hurt his grades. I fail to see what purpose is served by retaining this case, other than as a showcase example for critics of ArbCom to demonstrate the Committee's inability to correct its errors or rein in its members, when they level personal attacks. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Kirill, I agree that Misplaced Pages arbitration does not observe the precedents of case law. So far as I know, no prior case has been vacated because there has never been so much cause to do so as here. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Amending: Orangemarlin is a precedent, although an unusual one. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::To FT2: a single block and a short noticeboard thread is scant grounds to suppose that a 'newbie biting' culture existed. What did exist--and was well documented in case evidence--was a series of offsite campaigns by people who held a particular POV to manipulate Misplaced Pages articles toward their POV. The degree of organization varied, but they occurred across muliple fora whose participants were persistent. This created a significant dilemma for Wikipedians who contributed to the topic, since that manipulative element had already learned to exploit AGF by abandoning accounts after a few days or weeks and returning under new guises. How does one address that exploitation while maintaining a friendly welcome for genuine good faith newcomers? Shoemaker's Holiday's approach did not work, but neither did the community do well (imo) when consensus directed that indef block reviews occur on high traffic noticeboards where a percentage of threads inevitably get buried in the shuffle, and more pertinent to this review--the Committee's attempted solution wasn't any better. There has been a shortage of sysop attention for the site's touchier topics. A wise administrator who reads this case would take one very pertinent lesson from it: close CSDs, enforce 3RR violations, work on the image permissions backlogs, and don't even comment upon anything controversial. Eventually those festering messes will come to RFAR where the Committee that failed to assume good faith of site culture can cope with the result. We still need better site processes and policies, but that falls outside the Committe's remit. See ]. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Again to FT2: the case was opened under circumstances that would normally merit admin conduct RFC, and the only argument for bypassing prior DR was an allegation that a pernicious culture existed among the admin corps. That the person who initiated the request and made the allegation failed to substantiate it, and instead left a series of personal attacks on the site pages for two days before disappearing on an unannounced wikibreak, weighs heavily. Note too that the RFC for which the case was suspended established clear consensus support for the admin who was under scrutiny. He addressed the community's concerns to the community's satisfaction. The only remaining issue is his admin bit, and although the Committee's opinion is at odds with the community's he does not seek its return. The RFC was a proper RFC and will remain available for reference should that ever become necessary. The best portion of your concerns is sufficiently addressed there, and to the extent that this case is a valid one with reference to him (which I doubt) it is redundant with the RFC. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 02:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Martinphi==== | |||
| I seriously question whether he stayed away from Misplaced Pages for several months. My memory is that he was logging into the admin IRC network under his real name immediately after his case closed. Yes, Shoemaker appeared 18 February 2008 , while the case was closed 13 February 2008 . Yet, Shoemaker states above "I left Misplaced Pages over it, and it was only the active, constant encouragement of User:Newyorkbrad, User:Durova and a few others that brought me back after several months." Whether or not he believes this to be true, I cannot say. If he believes it, he's in no condition to be an admin again. If he doesn't, he's in no condition to be an admin again. | |||
| I have been the victim of his continued harassment since I took part in his ArbCom and RfC. If any action would give him back his admin tools, then I strenuously object, as he has continued to be an abusive editor since his desysopping. He already tried, by the regular means, to get his tools back at an RfA. He lost. He has lost the trust of the community. ——''']'''</span> ]~]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| My memory is also that while the ArbCom did not adhere to strict protocol in the case, it nevertheless went out of its way to ensure a full and just hearing of the case. It actually suspended the case pending an RfC. I have absolutely no doubt that if the ArbCom had seen anything in the RfC which indicated that Vanished user should keep his admin buttons, the ArbCom would have revised the case. Indeed, I am fully convinced that there were things which Vanished user could have done to keep his buttons: he could simply have said he was wrong and wouldn't do it again. He didn't. I told him how to keep his buttons, and he didn't do it. I believe the ArbCom was open to being convinced that their initial judgment was wrong, and the RfC failed to convince them. Certainly, Vanished user had many friends, who essentially said "he fights trolls, so excuse him." But that's not an excuse, and the ArbCom knew it. ——''']'''</span> ]~]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by uninvolved party ]==== | |||
| I have only recently become aware of this, and fully endorse Jehochman's view: it would be very good to erase it completely. This was bad procedure and sets bad precedent. It should never have happened. ] <small>]</small> 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Response to Krill: I think blanked and vacated would be the best option here. ] <small>]</small> 09:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Response to Kirill by uninvolved Ncmvocalist==== | |||
| A case was vacated earlier this year, though I'd prefer slightly different wording. If it is to be vacated, perhaps the Committee can vote on a motion that will replace (blank) what's on the case pages: "The Committee declares that the decision viewable in the history is vacated and not in effect. The history of the case pages are preserved for transparency." The Committee may need to issue a further report, or further statements that can hopefully help heal the wounds of those involved. ] (]) 05:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Additionally, it would involve removing the case from the archives. ] (]) 09:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::(I'm still reviewing this request, but meanwhile a question.) What case was vacated earlier this year? ] (]) 13:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Brad, I think he is referring to ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed, that's the one - granted, the circumstances were of course somewhat different in that case, I bring it up as an example of how one has been vacated in the very recent past. ] (]) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ;Addendum | |||
| It is time to embrace the change in approach that the rest of Misplaced Pages (heck, the rest of the world) have been pushing for more and more recently - this will become even more evident in the next couple of elections. A case was vacated earlier this year; this is another one that needs to be vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's motion. | |||
| Tendentious editing, civil POV pushing, problem editing, or whatever else you want to call it, is by far, one of the biggest problems this project is facing. Nothing can be compared to the detrimental effects this has on Misplaced Pages, the community in general, or those individual users who unfortunately encounter this sort of behaviour regularly. | |||
| I've read through this case a couple of times in the past, as if it were any other case. When I noticed many uninvolved members of the community engaging in heated discussion about it off-wiki and criticized certain members of the Committee in an extreme manner, my curiosity was sparked to read it again. I read part of it again just now and ] got me emotionally charged. | |||
| The experience I had when handling a particular problem editor (not that long ago) was disgusting. A number of checkusers (including arb emeritus or arbitrators), as well as admins and editors should have some recollection of who I am referring to. The amount of red tape and formalities I needed to go through (and the time and effort taken) were immensely horrible. It took weeks before there was enough evidence to justify a ban on that problem editor for disruption from sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry - and even that was with some luck. It took months before I was able to demonstrate (for the purposes of red-tape and formality) that the editor had been engaging in POV pushing, extreme rudeness, harassment and general disruption. In any case, I am certain we have all learnt from it. I'm not unexperienced in identifying problem editors - particularly from the sorts of expressions they use, the way they approach a dispute, and the way they approach a dispute. And I'm pretty sure I've been AGF'ing in this regard too. That said, I have no doubt that Matthew Hoffman was one such problem editor based on his contributions. | |||
| I was lucky to get through it because of a handful of users from different categories. However, many editors, including one very recently, was not so lucky and left Misplaced Pages as a result (an arbitrator was made aware of this recently). I appreciate the help the Committee provides in trying to resolve this problem, but this case does not do that; it does the opposite. A large number of the community are afraid to take action due to what may happen to them (i.e. what happened in this case). We're willing to desysop an admin for using some clue and taking action quickly, but we're unwilling to desysop admins who take no action at all? Yes, there were errors in his admin judgement sometimes, but RFC is supposed to provide a 2nd chance. In any case, it's a moot point anyway, as adminship isn't the point of clearing the case. | |||
| The case is having a causal effect on editors leaving the project due to the lack of support for community ridding the project of problem editors as early as possible. Such an outcome is not compatible with the goals of this project, and further shakes what confidence the community has in the Committee. I request that the case is vacated in the manner specified in Kirill's well-considered motion so that we can all move on. ] (]) 12:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by Chaser==== | |||
| I was tangentially involved in this case. For the reasons stated by Durova above, I think the committee should simply blank the case, leaving Shoemaker's Holiday without his bit, but removing the restriction on how he might get it back. His not asking for it back gives ArbCom a good opportunity to correct their error without forcing them to the logical conclusion of making him an admin again. | |||
| The comments below belie how ArbCom decisions are treated in the community. ArbCom de-sysopping has been called the ] for former admins returning to RFA; this was true for Shoemaker's Holiday despite the name change. Negative FoFs in a case follow editors (particularly project-space heavy editors) around the wiki. The final decision included adding a note to Hoffman's block log that ArbCom found the blocks to be unjustified. Shoemaker's Holiday, still an active editor, deserves at least the same consideration as someone no longer contributing here. He is asking for the Committee to once again officially acknowledge a mistake, but this time its own. In practical terms, replacing the page's contents with a big notice that the case has been vacated, à la Orangemarlin, is appropriate.--] - ] 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not enthused about the appearance, if not the reality of rewriting history in the last sentence of 1.3. But I'm not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.--] - ] 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by Scott MacDonald==== | |||
| I've no knowledge/interest in this case, but note that Krill's motion is dangerously ambiguous. ''This is done with the understanding that Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator''. Does Krill mean "consult prior to RfA" or "ask arbcom to resysop" (is an RfA required) and does "consult" mean "get the permission of" or "take advice from"? I've no dog in the race, but the motion is going to cause problems.--] (]) 21:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by JoshuaZ==== | |||
| The central claim made in the decision to desysop SH was that he was involved in a content dispute with Matthew Hoffman. Given that the last time SH had edited the page in question was 7 months prior to Hoffman's block, does the ArbCom acknowledge that this claim is incorrect? ] (]) 23:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement by uninvolved Sticky Parkin==== | |||
| I have said before that having negative findings of "fact" against them is very vile for the individual, especially if it involves judgments about a person's character, dismissiveness or other obnoxiousness (not saying this is the case here, but in general.) It would be difficult to 'vacate' an entire case, but I think the person should be allowed right to reply at the bottom of the decisions page if they feel false things have been said about them, otherwise a final judgement is made against them which will stand on wikipedia for years to come. Definitely an addendum should be added by the arbs if some false things they said about someone are later seen to be false- or those comments the arbs made which are later seen to be false should be struck out. Or is there ]? Clearly not as I like to think we're all partly human, and that arbcom can sometimes admit any errors or excessive obnoxiousness. ] ] 02:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Statement of common ground by ]==== | |||
| It seems like significant common ground exists, though the emotions inspired by this case seem to have everyone talking past each other. I sense from the Arbs' comments that they see at least some validity in the idea that this case was poorly handled. The resistance to vacating it seems to stem from the belief that the case's ''conclusions'' were valid, even if its execution was suboptimal. | |||
| Why not just append a resolution indicating that the Arbitration Committee recognizes deficiencies in the handling of this case (ideally, the deficiencies could be enumerated; I offer a ])? That the Committee intends to ''learn'' from those deficiencies, in the interest of quality improvement, but at the same time affirms the final remedies as valid? I hear SH saying that the case was handled unfairly, and I hear FT2 saying, "Well, maybe, but the end result was valid." Folks, those are not mutually exclusive viewpoints. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *just a note of aggreement with MastCell's comment. --] (]) 17:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| *Reformatted to include clerk and arbitrator sections.--] (]) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Question to Shoemaker's Holiday: are you requesting that the judgment be vacated?--] (]) 14:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Moved comments, also reformatted crossposted AN thread, added links. Please see ] for additional comments as they come.--] (]) 14:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Arbitrator comments==== | |||
| * I'm open to doing something constructive here in principle; but I'm not quite sure precisely how that might be framed. Arbitration cases are explicitly not binding precedent (and not really even advisory precedent); so the "case law" analogy doesn't really work. We don't, therefore, have any established method for vacating a case, per se—overturning it, yes, but not vacating it. What would you like to see in practical terms? A blanking of the case pages? A motion naming the case as being "vacated"? Or something else? ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Commenting in general, I think that there is here too great an assumption that arbitration on wikipedia works in a quasi-legal fashion with notions of fairness to the parties applied as they would be in a criminal law case in an adversarial court system. That is not how it works. The concept of fairness applies primarily to the project as a whole. Where a user is being disruptive for matters outside their control, then arbitrators must still act to restrict them to prevent disruption even if doing so appears to be unfair or harsh on the user. To express it another way, the key issue is the disruption and not what lies behind it. In this immediate case the active members of the committee at the time (I was not participating, having only just been appointed) have apologised for the way the case was handled, but not for the decision. | |||
| :Where that does come in is when we assess whether to remove restrictions. If a user has been disruptive because of some definite cause, and that cause no longer applies, then we ought to remove any restrictions placed on them because they are no longer needed. In this case I see a great deal of argument about whether the original case was decided appropriately but I see precious little to inform me about what positive actions are requested, and how they would benefit Misplaced Pages. I would like to see this point argued before I go to vote. I endorse everything Kirill says above about the uselessness of 'precedent'; the committee refuses to be bound by precedent so in effect it does not exist as such. ] (]) 10:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Response to Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm afraid that yet again a request for information about how to benefit the project going forward has been met with information about how decisions in the past were wrong. The most that I think can be done is to courtesy blank the Matthew Hoffman case, and I'm willing to support that, but formally 'vacating' it would be a meaningless act. I am at a loss to know how you interpret Morven's comments as an invitation to disclose confidential information to the community: they are instead plainly a statement that any application for your resysopping should go to the committee in order to preserve confidentiality. As you are not at present applying for resysop the issue does not arise anyway. ] (]) 11:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * What remedy do you seek? I doubt the Committee would consider revisiting the outcomes, given the facts as they existed then and now. Blanking would achieve little, given that your account was already renamed, the case of course existing under the username of the user you blocked. If people are in a mood to be revisiting things, then let's revisit the discussion of problems in our admin culture that was the substratum to the case, which has not proceeded in all this time. --] (]) 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Re Jehochman, I appreciate that what is sought is that the case be "vacated", but what is that intented to mean in substance? --] (]) 08:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * <p>I joined Arbcom a month into the case, and so one of my first questions was to review it carefully. The case was ] to get a review of the rise in "]" culture, by reviewing the behavior of those involved in the Matthew Hoffman block and its declined unblock, and assessing if Shoemaker's Holiday had acted properly as an administrator. By itself, this was one block 2 months previous to the case. It would probably not have led to a serious result of the form Charles Matthews had requested. The case was formally ] the divisive issues and to help resolve doubts, a reasonable view. Charles' Matthews also stated that a good explanation was still outstanding despite email requests chased up on the users' talk page in November. </p><p>On that basis, I would consider the case valid. But that wasn't all. By the time I reviewed, I found that there had not been just one mildly questionable block 2 months before the case. There had been multiple clear misuses of admin access, not just one, documented – easily sufficient (in my book) to show a pattern, and easily enough for an RFAR or a request to the Committee to take action. (See for example ].) It is common for a case to be accepted, and then adjust to take account of new factors that are presented in evidence. In this case the new factors included a worrying number of "bad" blocks, not just one. The most recent had been mere ''days'' before the case opened, ie at the end of November (and before the RFAR case request was ), not 2 months previous. Any one of those blocks alone might have been enough to formally warn an administrator at RFAR.</p><p>It is obvious and clear that the case process, handling, and so on, was extremely upsetting to Shoemaker's Holiday, some of which I agree with him on, some of which I think he's leaning on too much and isn't merited. Most of the case is history, and that's good. Shoemaker's Holiday has gotten past the issues mostly and that's good. But vacating the case would be asking for agreement the case was not valid, and should never have been heard, and I can't agree on that. I can only agree it should have been heard ''better'' in terms of handling than it was - a state of affairs for which numerous statements of apology have been sought and given and I'm at a loss to see what yet another can do. The case (and its final decision) were viable; the "how it got there" which is the issue, is secondary and has been discussed at length. The notion of "I need this case vacated for my own personal peace of mind" doesn't work for me since arbitration cases exist to serve the project, and there was a clearly reasonable and well evidenced ''project'' need for it (since bad adminship is a serious concern), even if this could have been processed, documented and followed up a lot better than it was. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :: (On a side, even if one looks at the initial grounds of the case (the block of Matthew Hoffman) alone, and nothing else, not one user has shown good evidence that 1/ Matthew Hoffman's block was in fact correct, 2/ The decision that condemned that block was unreasonable, or 3/ That an administrator who makes such a block, leading to controversy between administrators, should not have their block directly reviewed at RFAR. In fact it is the norm for desysop requests to go to RFAR without "prior dispute resolution". That Charles may have spoken poorly in his comments, does not change that the case was valid and accepted. ] 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)) | |||
| ::: Update - I also reviewed the "remedies posted within 24 hours" claim, since it seems pivotal to the complaint. In fact one arbitrator did clearly jump the gun - Uninvited Company, who posted the proposed findings of fact and remedy on December 3rd. However if you look closely, not one other arbitrator followed suit. Principles are easy to agree (they don't change much, it's often obvious on day #1 what principles are involved, and they act as "recitals" of policy points likely to have been considered). But the next support for any finding of fact or remedy was on ''December 8'', almost a week after the case opened, and well after much of the evidence (including personal disclosures by Vanished user) had been posted and examined. | |||
| ::: I anticipate and accept though, that to Vanished user the post on Dec 3 by Uninvited Company might well have looked like a decision was already made, and may have made him feel there was no point posting a more robust response. I feel that post was exceptionally unhelpful, since there was no way at all that it could be more than a largely speculative proposal at that time, and prone to significant amendment. But this should not be read as endorsement that the case itself finally was wrong; the final finding was of misuse of admin access and when I reviewed in January on joining, and again this last week, this conclusion was very clear and exceptionally well evidenced. | |||
| ::: (As a side note, one of my first recommendations for change in January 2008, was that a proposed decision should not be posted until 7 days into the case at minimum, for most cases, exactly because of my awareness of this matter.) ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 16:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Motions ==== | |||
| :''There are 11 active arbitrators (excluding one recusal) on these motions, so the majority is 6.'' | |||
| 1) All pages of the ] shall be blanked and replaced with a notice that the case is vacated. This is done with the understanding that {{user|Shoemaker's Holiday}} shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# After reading the discussion that are happening all over Misplaced Pages on this topic now, and remember the past discussions, I think that we need to step up and recognize that we got this wrong and fix it. We need to vacate this ruling. If needed we can write a short factual statement that explains the reason for the desysop. This is better than having a standing ruling that much of the Community thinks is dead wrong. ]] 18:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Second choice. ]] 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# Would not vacate, for reasons above. Whatever the closure value of this might be, and however much upset some parts of the handling may have caused, the roots of the case itself were serious, valid, and the case appropriately brought to RFAR, when I reviewed it. Many users have objections to an RFAR case where they were parties, but vacating a case implies more than "some process lapses". It would imply the entire case had no grounds, or that a massive mistake of fact that was later recognized, means that the beliefs the decision was based upon, were grossly mistaken. Even if one looked at the initial grounds of the case request alone, and nothing else, the case was valid. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 06:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# No. I would support courtesy blanking but not 'vacating'. ] (]) 11:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Per FT2, Sam. ] ] 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# Prefer 1.3 below. ] (]) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 1.1) All pages of the ] shall be courtesy blanked. This is done with the understanding that {{user|Shoemaker's Holiday}} shall consult with the Committee should he wish to become an administrator. | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Second choice, although frankly I can't fathom what the benefit of blanking but ''not'' vacating is, at this late stage. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 05:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Support although I do not think we need a motion to do it. ] (]) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# Not enough. If we need to start over and write the an accurate factual statement about why he lost the tools, then we can do it. Blanking a ruling helps, but there are real issues with the ruling that need to be addressed, I think. ]] 18:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Per Flo. ] ] 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# Prefer 1.3 below. ] (]) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 1.2) All pages of the ] shall be blanked with an edit summary saying, "The Matthew Hoffman case ruling is no longer active", and will be replaced with the statement, "After receiving feedback about the use of his administrative tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and in the future to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he want to have them returned." | |||
| :Support: | |||
| :# Adam and I discussed wording and he agreed to something along these lines. (Adam, I tweaked it a little but don't think I changed the meaning of our agreed wording. Let me know if you think differently.) I think that this is a fair statement about what happened. Mistakes were made by many people in this situation. It is for the best if we all put it behind us and move on. ]] 20:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) First choice. ]] 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose: | |||
| :# Oppose on grounds that "the case ruling is no longer active" is a meaningless phrase. ] (]) 23:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Per my opposition to 1.0. ] ] 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Abstain: | |||
| :# Prefer 1.3 below. ] (]) 04:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| 1.3) In light of all the circumstances presented, the findings and remedies contained in this committee's decision in ] are withdrawn insofar as they reflect adversely on the editor identified as "Vanished User." A notation to this effect will be made on the case pages, which have already been courtesy blanked. This action is based on the cumulative circumstances, and does not constitute a precedent for the routine withdrawal or vacating of arbitration decisions based on later disagreement with the decisions reached. The committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, Shoemaker's Holiday voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future. | |||
| :Support | |||
| :# After careful consideration, propose this wording as the best expression of what should reasonably be done. Uncharacteristically, I will not add further to the very substantial discussion that the case has already received. ] (]) 05:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# This is fine too. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 06:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I can accept this wording and hope it helps remove some of the hurt in this case. ] (]) 10:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Works for me. ]] 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# I can accept this, though per FT2, I have concerns that this will be seen in the wrong light. ] ] 01:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Oppose | |||
| :# <p>On principle. Findings that were properly decided, and accurately represent principles, actions, incidents, decisions, and communal norms related to these, would remain valid. I'm not quite sure how one "unfinds" that admin tools were misused, for example, when the evidence even on review makes it clear to an uninvolved administrator or user that this was the case. While I am acutely aware of the hurt felt (I've been a strong supporter of Shoemaker's holiday for as long as I've known him), any party in any case may feel "hurt" -- this isn't a good enough reason for removing valid verifiable findings of a case even if the processes that case followed leave a lot to be desired. This would be the same regardless of any standing of the requesting party.</p><p>The aim in this motion is to reduce the upset felt by a user, which I support... but at the cost of "unfinding" matters that genuinely took place and that were rightly deemed improper by the Committee, undertaken by that user. Specifically, multiple other users were blocked, and multiple other users were prevented from editing by utterly wrongful protection applied by an administrator who was heavily involved in editing "against" them; some users were described on the wiki as vandals who were not. These users mattered too. The level of pragmatism required to "unfind" these points is not one I feel is good precedent, or a wise compromise. I am unable to endorse a proposed decision to do so. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)</p> | |||
| :Abstain | |||
| :# | |||
| ---- | |||
| === Motion of clarification in the ]=== | |||
| In that case, the ArbCom took the line that userspace is not to be used to keep "laundry lists of grudges". This was in a remedy, rather than explicitly given as a principle. The general question of what can and cannot be placed in userspace is addressed also by ], and in the end comes down to whether given postings help the mission. Combining the explicit principles in that case, with the thought in the remedy, and policy, gives some relevant concepts on the acceptable use of userspace. The following represents our current interpretation. | |||
| Certain kinds of uses are impermissible. These include but are not limited to: | |||
| * Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, just to make a point. | |||
| * In general, there should not be negative postings of the attention-seeking kind. | |||
| * Blogging: userspace is not for general commentary. | |||
| * Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions | |||
| Certain kinds of uses are permissible: | |||
| * Userspace may be used to warehouse diffs, but only when intended as part of drafting for active dispute resolution. | |||
| * Essays are obviously OK (use ], and <nowiki>{{essay}}</nowiki>, saying this is what they are). By their nature essays deal with “issues, not personalities”. If they ever cross that line, from the general issue to particular and personal allusions, they lose their privileged status. | |||
| * Drafts of political as well as policy pieces are OK, say ahead of elections. It is helpful if they are dated and headed to indicate this. | |||
| * Support for enforcement of existing sanctions, where there is a real and present need to share information. | |||
| ====Comment by ] (])==== | |||
| Procedural objection: the case is over a year old, and AGK's proposal could be made policy through the normal procedure of simply editing ], the official content guideline for such things, or by discussing it on the talk page of same. There is no reason for the Arbcom to get involved, the connection to the case is at best highly tangental, and the Arbcom really shouldn't be in the habit of revisiting old cases simply to make a non-urgent policy rewrite. | |||
| Obviously, AGK's good faith is not in question - he was probably simply unaware of ]. ] (]) 03:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You are misunderstanding what is happening here. AGK reformatted the motion - the motion itself was offered by ]. ]] 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, the formatting is unclear, however, this only makes arbcom's rejection in favour of Charles editing ] more important: In the recent ], there was a a strong objection to what was seen as Arbcom writing policy. If arbcom decides to actually write policy by fiat, based on revisiting a year-old case, it would cause excessive controversy, all of which could be easily avoided if the Arbcom simply went to ] as respected members of the community and declaring their support for Charles' change. ] (]) 09:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Considering that ] already makes clear that ''content is only permitted with the consent of the community'', this seems beside the point. Since the motion was drafted after I consulted on the ArbCom list, I'd be surprised if it didn't represent the "current interpretation", as it says. If I'm wrong about that, well, I'm wrong. It seems clearest to proceed in this way, clarifying first. Maybe there will be commentary that could be illuminating. (The clerk is just doing the clerk's job here, but the system has got Procrustean and templated.) ] (]) 12:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Erm, Shoemaker, I ''do'' know what WP:USER is. :)<br />Avruch has succinctly outlined precisely what I'm thinking here: I was clerking this thread, not making a motion. (Incidentally, only an Arbitrator may do that.)<br />] 12:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, sorry, the layout was really unclear as to who made the motion. Your signature was the only one near the motion. | |||
| ::::On Charles Matthews' point - I'm really uncomfortable with the increase in arbcom power that this motion would represent - it effectively gives Arbcom the right to make policy simply by finding any past case to which the policy can be connected. Charles Matthews makes excellent suggestions for additions to ], and they could, in all likelihood, be added there uncontroversially by Charles as an editor. But an arbcom declaration in the same line puts any future decisions on the matter outside of the community's decision. It would mean that User page policy would, from then onwards, only be changeable by appeal to Arbcom. | |||
| ::::The basic problem is that, as there is no evidence that the community is unable to handle user page policy, nor that community-based means for implementing this have even been tried, going for the "nuclear option" of Arbcom-declared policy as the first option seems, at the very least, to set a bad precedent; and, at the worst, could cause unnecessary controversy and drama. ] (]) 18:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I can't agree to that. ] is a content guideline, but it clearly needs to be read in the light of other policies, such as ] and ]. Content guidelines aren't free-standing entities in their own little world. I'm sure that is common ground. There are some nuances involved, as the draft makes clear. There should be no need for another Arbitration case to deal with grudge-bearing on the site: once is enough. This is a motion to clarify, and if the same material had been appended in Tobias Conradi as commentary, or had been prompted by a request, I doubt we'd be discussing it in this fashion. At this level of detail, it isn't evident there is a need to write all this into WP:USER, but spelling out some of the considerations a year on makes sense to me. At the very least, some people aren't too aware of the "case law" on this matter. ] (]) 10:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by ] (])==== | |||
| I would like to bring up some issues here. I have no intention of blowing this out of proportions but I had some concerns when reading this request for clarification. | |||
| * Could you provide any recent evidence that the community has had issues with these types of pages? | |||
| * If so, what evidence is there that the community has sought other venues to try and deal with these problems? | |||
| * Has it got to the point where the community is unable to decide for itself? | |||
| * If none of these happened why was this request simply not taken to the talk page of ]? | |||
| * Given that this is a guideline, it is not enforceable, and if, via this clarification it is being made enforceable doesnt it make it policy? | |||
| * I was under the impression that ARBCOM avoided editting or creating policy? | |||
| I would be very glad if all of these questions could cleared up for me. | |||
| ''']''' <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by ] (])==== | |||
| Had this been an ordinary request for clarification, I don't think there'd have been a problem here. Turning it into a motion that's explicitly stuck back into the main case page is one though - I'm surprised that the 3 of you have abstained to reduce the majority, rather than procedurally opposed given the legitimate concerns here. This motion gives all appearances that ArbCom are becoming legislative. | |||
| That said, I don't think anyone strongly disagrees with the proposals itself; rather, it's the manner in which its done. Why the reluctance to put it into policy? Its inclusion doesn't need to be limited to any one content guideline/policy (such as USER); the relevant parts can be put into relevant guidelines/policies (whether its HARASS or NOT or whatever else). WP:NLT was amended just before the Haines case closed so I don't see why this should be any different just because it would involve more than one page. Additionally, the proposals aren't remarkably 'new' - the community have come across these particular scenarios in the recent past and used common sense along with policy, rather than relying on any cases. So amending "case law" as opposed to "legislation" is questionable & unnecessary as far as this issue is concerned - I don't think we have, or ever will look to "case law" to handle what is specified in these proposals. | |||
| This should not be a motion to amend a previous case. If the Committee wants to give guidance (on request), it shouldn't be any more than a request for clarification that gets archived on the talk page of the case. ] (]) 02:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment by ]==== | |||
| The Arbcom are entitled to vote for this resolution if they want to. | |||
| They may also vote on a resolution of if the moon is made of cheese. | |||
| Neither of the votes can have any effect. | |||
| The Arbitration Policy is clear on this, ArbCom have no ability to create new policy by fiat, no matter if they can tangentially link it to a case. | |||
| Charles, I think this borders on an abuse of your station as Arbitrator to push for policy changes you want, and you should probably withdraw it and use the normal process of changing policy by consensus. What you ask for isn't greatly objectionable, but this is not the way to do it.--] (]) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Background note from Avruch ==== | |||
| A recent case where the motion offered would have an impact can be found ]. I'm sure that Charles Matthews left it out because the principle has wider application and might not fit perfectly with this particular incident. ]] 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== A small point from Fut.Perf.==== | |||
| I stumble over this: ''"Lists of grudges, problem users, diffs, '''just to make a point.'''"'' (my emphasis). | |||
| There's a bizarre tendency in Misplaced Pages-internal jargon, inspired no doubt by ], to treat the expression "to make a point" as if it denoted something bad. Worse, it appears that many people use the phrase "you are just making a point!" to mean: "you are saying something I don't like". Let me point out that to make points is the whole point of – well, of what? Language. Communicating. Why on earth would anybody ever write down anything if not in order to get his point across? My point being, please point out more precisely what you mean at that point. Thank you. ] ] 12:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Usually as in "We know where you live". People don't say that to start a conversation. What is another concise way to explain why they say that? ] (]) 19:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I fail to get your point. Are you seriously comparing the collection of wikipedia complaints to a veiled threat of physical violence? (That, incidentally, is a "concise way to explain why they say that" other phrase). – But anyway, on further consideration, I think I agree with Shoemaker's Holiday. There is no indication the community isn't able to decide on its own what the legitimate limits of userspace writing are. As long as the community is not in an intractable, serious and divisive impasse about how to handle this issue, you guys have no business deciding what the policy should be. – By the way, ''"Pre-emptive developments running ahead of community or ArbCom sanctions"'' is another one that goes beyond my semantic guessing capacities. ] ] 21:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====A small point from Jehochman==== | |||
| The second motion specifies what can be kept for the purpose of "dispute resolution". What about keeping lists of diffs or notes about other editors (possibly of a derogatory nature) for elections, such as ], ] and ]? I think it would be good for clarity to explicitly add or exclude such uses. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Comment from Durova==== | |||
| Committee members, you should be proposing this on the guideline talk page in your normal role as editors. When and if the community tries and fails to resolve such matters and all normal means have been exhausted, then an arbitration motion along these lines might become credible. No evidence has been put forward that normal means have been tried and the initiating motion specifically expresses a desire to get ahead of events. Proactive changes are the community's responsibility. As a body you are the last step in dispute resolution. Both the original motion and the alternate are profoundly out of order. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| *Voting section below put into the usual format for these motions. ] 21:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| * <p>There are two issues here. The general principle that user space is for matters that benefit the project, and remains communally owned and subject to community feelings. If used to hold contentious "blame lists" these need to be well justified in line with the traditional principle that once something's over, it's history. If there is contentious problematic material then ultimately it is a wiki page, not ]. This is a principle covered in ], and which we referred to and affirmed in our decision "]". But that was all we did. We did not create policy, not change it, we affirmed what was already well established as being written within existing norms.</p><p>Administrators may need assurance that they will not be treated as misusing administrative tools, if they were stricter on deleting or blanking such content that appears to be problematic in user space. That's fair to raise, since ultimately if there were a question, we would be asked to rule on it. I'd feel comfortable saying how I see the aim of that guideline, and how I'd handle such content, and to give assurance/guidance that some kinds of action will not usually be seen as a problem by us, as measured against norms of the community. Those are well within our usual remit. I would not however require Arbcom to write policy or guidelines in doing so. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 07:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ====Motion==== | |||
| (Motion as above) | |||
| :''There are 12 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 7.'' | |||
| *Support: | |||
| :#Support ] (]) 19:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) (proposing) | |||
| :#:Comment: the proposal below to move them into a case that will soon be voting is not anything I have a big problem with. They've been looked at here, and if they are in some way "folded" as comment into a case, that will serve. The content itself seems not to be so contentious for the ArbCom, so the draft has done its work. ] (]) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#: Per FloNight's vote: OK then, this turns into an annexe of a Workshop for something. Others please edit as necessary. ] (]) 19:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Clear enough, and will help deal with the issue we've had in which people cite the case as an exclusive, rather than inclusive, list. ] ] 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Oppose: | |||
| :# This issue comes up regularly and there is confusion about it so interpretation of the issue by ArbCom will be beneficial. But I also prefer including this in an active case for the reasons stated by Newyorkbrad. ]] 19:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# We'll handle this in ''Kuban Kazak-Hillock65''. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# In favor of #2 that is more solidly grounded. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# The motion has been blanked. ] (]) 11:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Abstain: | |||
| :#Although I am in general agreement with Charles Matthews' proposals, and I do not believe any great harm would come of our adopting them in the fashion proposed here, there appears to be some objection that the action proposed would be somewhat legislative in character, i.e., the Arbitration Committee creating or revising policy outside the scope of a pending dispute. Working for the adoption of these ideas either through editing of ] or by proposing them as principles in the pending ''Piotrus 2'' and ''Kuban Kazak'' cases, both of which involve disputes over the use of userspace, may provide a more readily accepted vehicle for addressing the issues presented. ] (]) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#: <s>Per NYB. This is really guidance rather than an actionable provision, but there are better venues available for putting this forward. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 01:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :# I also agree with Brad. --] (]) 01:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| =====Alternate motion ===== | |||
| 2) The Committee affirms and clarifies the principle that was stated as a ] in the ]: | |||
| # User space is communally owned. It is generally left to the ] user to manage, for the benefit of the project, but within agreed communal guidelines. (The guideline ] applies.) | |||
| # While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in ] or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users". | |||
| # The Committee also notes that the community has long held that user space is not to be excessively used for blogging, promotion (including unreasonable self-promotion), and various other purposes. | |||
| # Users are encouraged to avoid keeping such content on the wiki when there is no good cause. Uninvolved users and administrators are encouraged to be willing to check whether such pages may be removed, if they appear to be dormant, redundant, or not presently "live". | |||
| # The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, ''provided'':- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki). | |||
| # ], provision of the content of such deleted pages to the userspace "owner" is at administrator discretion, if reasonably useful for future Misplaced Pages community purposes, and the user has good reason and appears to be requesting it for good faith purposes. '''Administrators should be aware that pages of this kind may contain egregiously (unhelpfully) disruptive, defamatory and/or privacy breaching material, and should redact these from any text forwarded, if they decide to do so'''. | |||
| :Nothing written above is intended to discourage recording support and evidence concerning enforcement of an ''existing sanction'', where there is a real and foreseeable project benefit to sharing information. However such matters should ideally be on a case page rather than userspace, where one exists. | |||
| *Support: | |||
| :# ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I think this is how it should be said. #5 could be redundant or useful, I can't quite decide. | |||
| :# Support as an analysis of policy and guidance to users as to how the committee is likely to view their questionable user sub-pages. ] (]) 11:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Fine, although this could be condensed somewhat. ] <sup><small>(])</small></sup> 17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# Whatever - no surprise that FT2 and I write things differently. ] (]) 10:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#: Concur. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#Insufficiently concise, but yeah. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :# ] ] 01:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Oppose: | |||
| :#Per my comment on the original motion and I'll explain further. I don't think we should use new motions for old cases as tools to address current issues unless absolutely necessary. Our rulings are not suppose to set precedents for future rulings or set policy, so unless an previous ruling needs to be adjusted for an serious error in a Fof or a remedy needs to be adjusted, cases ruling should be left unchanged. The issue of the Committee writing policy and guidelines is of great concern to many members of the Community. I think that we need to be sensitive to these concerns by limiting our use of our policy/guideline interpretation to active situation where clarification is needed to clear up a problem. ]] 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I quite understand the concern. If, though, remedies cannot in some sense be "promoted" to Principles in a case, retrospectively, then I think the way for example the Cla68 case was drafted seems less satisfactory. If we have to proceed from remedy "A, B and C shouldn't do negative thing X" by simply widening the list of editors, then we have some problem. "Negative thing X" should then have been thought of as a Principle, in the terms "Doing X is negative for the project, at least under the following circumstances." And the "circumstances" would need to be drawn up broadly. I think this is a recipe for verbiage. Having indicated "X is negative" in a remedy, the transition to "no one should do it, as far as we're concerned and in normal circumstances" is what people should read. We are not going to get everything tidily expressed, and clarifying our view later and when more bad tricks have been found is just housework, in my view. ] (]) 17:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Abstain: | |||
| :# Per my comment on the original motion. ] (]) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Latest revision as of 03:40, 31 January 2023
Wikimedia project page
ArbitrationCommittee
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
Open cases| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requests| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 15 January 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for arbitration
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Guidance on participation and word limits
Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
- Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
- In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
- Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
- Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
- Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
- Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using
~~~~). - Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
- Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
- Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.
General guidance
- Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
- Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
- Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
- Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
- WP:ARCA
- WP:ARA
- WP:A/R/C&A
- WP:A/R/CL
- WP:A/R/A
- WP:A/R/CA
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment
| Clarification and Amendment archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Amendment request: American politics 2
Initiated by Interstellarity at 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Request to push the year of the contentious topic designation to be later.
Statement by Interstellarity
I would like to request that the designated year of the contentious topic designation to be pushed somewhat later. The year 1992 was decided as the best compromise at the time. I feel that enough time has passed and we can possibly push it later and get an idea of how the cutoff is working. Four years ago, we only considered election years, but I think it would be better in this discussion to consider any year, regardless of whether it was an election year or not. I would like to throw some ideas on what the new cutoff could be.
- 1. Everything 2000 and after - Most of the disruptive editing on American politics has been after Obama left office and I would strongly oppose moving the cutoff anywhere after 2017 since Trump is the incoming president and was president before. Other than the 9/11 attacks, I don't antipate much disruption during this period.
- 2. A cutoff that automatically moves every year - say we choose 20 or 25 years (2005 or 2000) as our moving cutoff, the next year it would 2001 or 2006. That's basically the gist of it.
- 3. Everything 2009 and after - Another possibility that's somewhere in the middle of the road between the broad 2000 and the restrictive 2017.
- 4. Everything 2017 and after - this is the strictest cutoff I would support especially since the incoming president was president during this period and the disruptive editing is at its highest.
I hope the arbitrators, with community input, can see the changing needs of Misplaced Pages and act accordingly to acknowledge as time passes. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: OK, that's an interesting point. On the topic of sanctions between 1992 and 1999, I haven't checked the number of sanctions for that period, but my guess would be some low number. If the disruptive editing is very minimal during this time period, it could be covered by our normal disruptive editing policy. If there are specific topic areas of that period that deserve sanctions stronger than the disruptive editing policy, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Interstellarity (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay
2015, would likely be the appropriate cutoff year, if we're not going to go along with a U.S. presidential election year. Otherwise, 2016. The automatic date readjustment idea, is acceptable too. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Rosguill
I think periodically revisiting the cutoff date is reasonable. Looking through 2024's page protections, the overwhelming majority concern then-ongoing political events or individuals, with a handful of pages concerning events 2016-2022, and only one page about a historical event prior (9/11). User sanctions are obviously much more difficult to retroactively map onto a temporal range of history, but they're also a minority of logged AE actions for AP2. On that basis, moving the cutoff to 2016 seems reasonable. signed, Rosguill 22:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Izno
This is essentially ArbCom shopping: The previous amendment was barely two years ago, which moved the date from the 1930s to 1992, for which there was pretty strong evidence to show that the 60 year bump was more or less reasonable. Before that adjustment this topic had been a contentious topic for the better part of a decade by itself (with earlier designations specifically for September 11 among others). I see no reason to consider bumping this further for, say, another decade, when we might have actual evidence to indicate events in whatever period haven't remained of general contention. That this designation has been used for events that would no longer qualify in the past 2 years suggests that the designation is doing its job. Izno (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Kenneth Kho
The lack of editors being sanctioned for pre-2015 AMPOL suggests the extent of disruption while present does not need CTOP. The article on September 11 attacks was restricted only because "sporadic edit warring" and the consensus required restriction does not appear to generate significant talk page activity either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath
Per Izno, it's only a couple of years ago that the cut-off was pushed from 1930 to 1992. 1992 is just prior to the start of the Clinton term and I think that's when the conservatives really started going feral. If we moved the cut-off to after Clinton's term then we risk tendentious editors POV pushing on anything connected to Clinton. I think questions like this are probably best left until the next time there is a full case, particularly because as mentioned it was only two years ago that the cut-off was pushed forward 62 years. TarnishedPath 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde
It doesn't look like any revision is going to happen here, but I want to specifically note that a rolling cutoff seems to me to be an administrative nightmare, and I would strongly advise against it. I believe the scope is fine as is - I don't see evidence of a burden to editors or administrators - but I'd much rather the scope be narrowed all at once, if at all, than gradually shifted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Aquillion
Here is the previous request that led to the 1992 cutoff, for the curious. I'm going to repeat something I said in that discussion: It's important that the cutoff be intuitive, since everyone has to remember it and new users ought to be able to reasonably anticipate it. I don't think that an automatically-moving cutoff is viable, partially for that reason and partially because how long individual events and public figures and so on remain flashpoints for disruption doesn't really follow any set pattern but instead maps to the sometimes unpredictable political careers of major figures, as well as where news coverage, social media, talking heads and so on choose to focus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
American politics 2: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion
- @Interstellarity: I guess the question I would have is: of the AP2 sanctions imposed in 2023 and 2024, how many wouldn't fall under post–2000 American politics, broadly construed? If the answer to that is 0 or some very low number, then I could see narrowing the topic area. (If there's a user sanction that partially relies on edits in the 1992–1999 politics area, I would count that too.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- The following actions were taken in 2024 under AP2 regarding pre-2015 topics:
- Cloward–Piven strategy indef pending changes
- September 11 attacks indef consensus required restriction
- The Right Brothers indef semi
- All other actions taken there are pretty clearly due to post-2015 developments, and would be acceptable with a cutoff of 2015. Inclined to support such an amendment. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Obama. Apparently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mildly curious how Cloward–Piven qualifies under the current regime... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- My initial gut feeling is that 1992 was the beginning of the end of... regular? politics in the US, so it makes sense as a starting point. If articles about that time period aren't causing a problem then I wouldn't be opposed to shifting it. I would be hesitant to go much past 2000, since I've seen that some articles from that era still being fairly contentious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Without a very compelling reason I'd hesitate to consider making it any date after "post-2000 American politics" because articles like September 11 attacks still have recurring issues. - Aoidh (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having seen the post by Izno, I must agree (though with the slight correction that it was almost exactly four years ago); a rolling begin period was not even put forward as a motion at that time, nor were later dates; what has changed so much in three years, and why is this update necessary so (relatively) soon after the last one? Primefac (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- A quick look down 2024 and 2023 enforcement actions in the AP area, it doesn't look like many (any?) are for articles that would be excluded if the start year was moved from 1992 to 2000. I am opposed to a rolling start year given the administrative workload it would cause, per comments by Vanamonde and Aquillion. Keen to see an answer to Primefac's question immediately above. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Motions
 | Shortcuts
This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Requests for enforcement
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
| Important informationShortcuts
Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lemabeta
| Lemabeta has acknowledged the warnings here to take more care and stay well clear of articles from which they are restricted from editing. Further violations are very likely to lead to sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade 12:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lemabeta
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. EF 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning LemabetaStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by LemabetaYeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --Lemabeta (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Lemabeta
|
Boy shekhar
| Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Boy shekhar
Discussion concerning Boy shekharStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Boy shekharStatement by VanamondeThis user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning Boy shekhar
|
שלומית ליר
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning שלומית ליר
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Smallangryplanet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- שלומית ליר (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of how these edits violate it
ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
- 2014 to 2016: no edits.
- 2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
- 2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
- 2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of Palestinian genocide accusation complaining about its content and calling it “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”.
- 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
- Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
- In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
- Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the Battle of Sderot article where they changed the infobox picture with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and removed a template without providing a reason why.
- They also edited the Use of human shields by Hamas article, adding another image with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet another image with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content in the lead.
- they also voted in the second AfD for Calls for the destruction of Israel despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.
More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across this article authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Misplaced Pages. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full here. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2023-04-05 and re-iterated on 2024-11-25 (see the system log linked to above).
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 2024-12-18 by Femke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Adding some additional comments on 2025-01-16: On top of POV issues, the user has a number of tweets that appear to be a clear admission of gaming, implicit canvassing, creating and sharing lists of potential "most biased articles", and clearly calling for specific edits. They've also been cited as coordinating an off-wiki coordination hub for editing Misplaced Pages. If this - combined with the tweets, the forms, the op-ed and the report to the WJC, all under this user's name (that they also use to edit Misplaced Pages - this is not outing) isn't a clear cut case of canvassing, I don't know what is. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- Notification diff
Discussion concerning שלומית ליר
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by שלומית ליר
I believe contents of this filing to be in clear policy violation and have reached out to the arbitration committee for further clarification before commenting further.שלומית ליר (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was given clarification from an admin regarding my concerns and will now be drafting a response. Thank you for your patience. שלומית ליר (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Thebiguglyalien
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision was posted at ARBPIA5 and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "AE topic bans" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report
Statement by Selfstudier
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by starship.paint (2)
I would to like to raise this 9 December 2024 edit at Battle of Sderot, where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph (On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...
) that שלומית ליר added a reference to (archive 1 / archive 2) from the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation. The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same YouTube video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by xDanielx
@Arcticocean: I don't really see how NPOV can be read as requiring edits which support both sides of a controversy. Our content policies don't impose any positive duties; they only tell us what not to do. The text of the policy doesn't support the notion that a pattern of edits could be in violation, even if no particular edit is in violation.
In principle, such a pattern of edits could violate the UCoC policy, but I don't believe this board has ever enforced it. If it were to be enforced, I think it should be for more serious violations like the double standards that e.g. this attempted to demonstrate, rather than mere opinion-driven editing which applies to the vast majority of CTOP editors. — xDanielx /C\ 03:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Hemiauchenia
This user has engaged in off-wiki canvassing regarding the IP conflict. Take the following recent tweet from the 12 January permanent archive
For posterity in case it is deleted it contains the following remarks:
If you can't handle the facts, just delete them Propaganda on @Misplaced Pages includes targeting Israel, demonizing it, and erasing inconvenient truths, from falsifying war outcomes to deleting Israeli inventions and attempting to erase the reality of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Along with this is a screenshot of the current AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Palestinian suicide attacks. People are of course allowed to be caustic about Misplaced Pages off-wiki, but calling out a specific AfD with highly charged rhetoric, essentially inciting canvassing seems out of line. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For those concerned that this might be outing, שלומית ליר is very open about their real life identity on their userpage. See (archived). If you reveal your real identity on Misplaced Pages, your tweets about Misplaced Pages on your Twitter account connected to your real-life identity are fair game to mention. There's also reverse confirmation in this tweet . Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Cdjp1
As we seem to be ok to pull evidence from the statements of the editor in question, they have also commented more recently about running interference on Misplaced Pages (archive) in response to a question of if Misplaced Pages can be "saved". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland
It has been several days. Perhaps שלומית ליר could clarify whether their belief about the way Misplaced Pages works turned out to be a true belief or a false belief so that this report can progress. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning שלומית ליר
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like this is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The off-wiki canvassing is a problem. It merits a warning at least, I don't know if the formality thereof matters. If there was evidence that שלומית ליר was aware of WP:CANVAS I would consider something more stringent. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see some evidence - based on Arcticocean's digging below - that שלומית ליר is using images without sufficient care, but I don't see that rising to the level of a sanction. As to the rest, xDanielx is correct - nowhere do our policies require treating both sides of a conflict equally - indeed our PAGs discourage false balance. Those diffs could be actionable if they individually or collectively violate policy, but I have yet to see evidence of that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I understand Vanamonde93's concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors places an obligation to Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The linked page provides that Misplaced Pages is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. If an editor is only adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making only one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the whole article is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. arcticocean ■ 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
- Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists.
- Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence.
- Removing an outdated maintenance tag which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, Massacre of pensioners, and again.
- Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims), therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; adding another reference to that claim; and adding another.
- Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque', then again Rockets hidden at a house, both to the first line of the article.
- Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable and expanding other coverage of culpability of that side.
- On the talk pages, there has been a tinge of failure to AGF although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
- There are then edits to LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine: inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead; adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict. At Houthi movement, there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, to add references to terrorist attacks (with follow-up).
- Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. arcticocean ■ 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @XDanielx: Thanks for commenting. Most of the edits do not have a neutral, encyclopedic POV. There is an effort to influence our articles away from neutrally describing the subject without taking sides, contrary to WP:NPOV. Even if each edit in isolation is insufficient for sanctioning, taken as a whole the edits show an inability or unwillingness to edit neutrally. One non-neutral edit shouldn't be sanctioned; twenty is a different story. This is not about the percentage of biased edits but about the weight or amount of them. Therefore, the assessment wouldn't really change even had the editor made some 'neutral' edits along the way. I'm happy to concede that editors cannot be compelled to balance edits of one bias with edits of another, but I don't think that comes into it. In a nutshell, this is about Misplaced Pages:Advocacy. arcticocean ■ 08:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed at 17:33, 8 December 2024, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
- The offwiki canvassing is a problem...שלומית ליר, you're fairly inexperienced here. Were you aware WP:canvassing is not allowed? Valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- For transparency, שלומית ליר reached out to me, and I explained multiple policy and advised her to go ahead and respond here without waiting for individual feedback from her email to arbcom, which may or may not happen. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I take it that per Barkeep49's brief oversighting of potentially-sensitive content in this report (Special:Diff/1269845558), and then restoration of the same (Special:Diff/1269848988), concerns of outing have been investigated and the report can proceed on its merits? signed, Rosguill 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's correct. I got a request, I didn't really feel it was OUTING, but as I indicated in my edit summary OS is a tool of first resort. I consulted with the OS listserv and received some responses quickly agreeing with me and so I unsuppressed and restored the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Luganchanka
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Luganchanka
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Luganchanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: , which he subequently blanked There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Luganchanka
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Luganchanka
The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Misplaced Pages editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions -
14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"
andFirst sentence
. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only section — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))
- As per Rosguill's comments:
"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."
https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle
Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by NatGertler
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Luganchanka
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- @Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.
- But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. signed, Rosguill 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of
whitewash
before writing this off as time-served. signed, Rosguill 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state
masturbated and ejaculated on camera
, saying onlygraphic sex act
. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. signed, Rosguill 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. signed, Rosguill 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Luganchanka:
- WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to
not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person
. There are some narrow exceptions (whenprimary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source
), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy. - — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim (, ) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? signed, Rosguill 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state
- Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. signed, Rosguill 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of
- @Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say
there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors
regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)- @Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:
- It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (
convicted child sex offender
) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, whileThere has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences
is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion. - That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got
two different forums with two different answerstwo different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle. - Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter
was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges
in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it asan offense of the same grade and degree
as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion. - Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.
- In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.
- — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for BLP violations and personal attacks. Liz 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. signed, Rosguill 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
BabbleOnto
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning BabbleOnto
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- BabbleOnto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19#Contentious_topic_designation
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 11 January 2025 Sealioning
- 11 January 2025 Refusal to get the message
- 11 January 2025 Personalizing an argument.
- 11 January 2025 Railroading the discussion.
This is all after I warned them about WP:AE sanctions, and they dismissed my warning out of hand. Very nearly a WP:SPA on the subject. I see no reason to continue tolerating this kind of obstinate tendetiousness. Additional diffs available on request from admins, but looking at the user history should suffice to indicate the problem is obvious, I hope.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 9 Dec 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a WP:SPA with respect to the topic and their disruption surrounding it has been subject to at least one WP:FTN thread that remains active: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gain_of_function_research. The hope was that they would WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on from this, but it seems they either will not or cannot. jps (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning BabbleOnto
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by BabbleOnto
I would first like to begin by point out the person filing this complaint is involved in the content disputes at issue. They have frequently left "warnings" which read more like threats on my talk page and others' talk pages for people who disagree with them. Nor would I be the first person who would they would get banned from this topic for disagreeing with them.
To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is I'm being charged with doing.
I think in general the user is alleging I've been uncivil, unhelpful, and, in their words, obstinate and tendentious. I know when someone disagrees with you it may feel like they're getting in your way and acting in bad-faith, but that's not always true. I've never tried to be disruptive or uncivil. I've admitted when I was wrong, I've dropped arguments that were clarified to be wrong, I've tried to find compromise, at times begging people to provide their sources and work together. And when those editors refused to, I didn't provoke any further.
I now address the specific edits in the complaint:
1. I don't see how this is sea-lioning. The user misquoted the article. I pointed out the misquotation, then addressed a accusation against me that I was second-guessing the sources (A claim which was never substantiated). I then said any source would have to support that actual claim which was in the article. I don't know what this violates.
2. I don't see how this is refusing to get the message (IDHT). The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it. I replied with what I actually said. What part of that interaction is saying "I didn't hear that?"
3. Admittedly probably the strongest of the four allegations. I'm not pretending I was perfect in all of my comments. I should have kept my criticism strictly to their argument. I ask you to read it in context and keep in mind you're viewing a hand-picked assortment of my worst edits, and this is the worst they could find. Also consider that conversation accused me of having a basic reading comprehension problem, perhaps you can see I lose my cool sometimes too.
4. I'm not even really sure what "railroading the discussion" means. Thus, to keep this section short and to save words, I don't know what I'm being accused of doing wrong here.
All of this has stemmed out of arguments over two sources. I have tried to find compromise, I have tried to negotiate, I have tried to build consensus. I've been going through the proper channels, I've been participating in the RfC, I've been discussing it on the ANI, I source every claim I make, for a month now I've been trying to constructively explain my side and defend my argument against challenges. It's incredibly frustrating to now be facing an Arbitration Enforcement on grounds that I'm not working with others. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Edited. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, the sub-header for this section says that only admins can edit this section, I didn't realize I was allowed to reply here.
- Yes, I will. I intend on taking an extended break from wikipedia, as well. BabbleOnto (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admin section; you can answer questions, make comments, discuss, but all your input needs to be in your own section. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
- What I meant was that I'm willing to respect the consensus and not make any further edits or argue any more contrary to what the consensus decided. It seems to me that saying I have "Issues around understanding policy" and asking me to "learn policy" has subtext that says "Until you agree with this consensus, and you won't be allowed to edit at all." Is respectful disagreement with this consensus allowed? I'm afraid if in order to avoid a ban I have to personally agree with the consensus, beyond just respecting it, then there's nothing I can do. I still do disagree with the consensus's result. Nonetheless, I'm not going to edit or argue further, I'll respect it as a legitimate.
Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
I've interacted with BabbleOnto in several threads. There's a few problems, but ultimately, I think they have a certain opinion on what the article should say, and will debate endlessly to get the article changed to their position. I mean, sure, reasonable people disagree on how to interpret sources and apply policy, but I don't think BabbleOnto is actually interested in faithful application of policies to write high quality articles based on good sources.
That's not terribly problematic by itself, but most discussions with BabbleOnto are exhausting. Rather than actually trying to understand someone's argument in good faith, I think BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible, and making a superficially reasonable response ad nauseam. They reply endlessly in this manner. As well as misrepresentation of opponents' arguments, on multiple occassions BabbleOnto has either misrepresented sources or hasn't read their own sources. I can't think of a single thread where BabbleOnto didn't have the last word, or a single thread where it seemed like BabbleOnto was actually trying to understand the arguments of other editors in a charitable way. As such, I think it's very difficult to work collaborately with BabbleOnto on the lab leak theory and related articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Newimpartial
As the editor to whom BabbleOnto was responding in the diffs of the filing, I feel compelled to comment now that they have defended (to varying degrees) their first three diffs. I will reply as briefly as I know how to their defense of the diffs, as revised.
1. BabbleOnto is now doubling down on the claim that I misquoted the article
. I didn't "misquote" the article - I didn't quote the article, and I explained what my comment meant in the rest of the (now collapsed) thread that ends here. Also, I provided a clear explanation of why I thought they were second-guessing sources later in the thread, but BabbleOnto never responded to that explanation. They are now responding to the accusation of WP:CPUSH with pure WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.
2. On this they say, now, that The other party is making direct claims alleging I said something. I did not say it.
This is repeating a misreading they made in the original thread, where they mistook a statement I made about another editor's comment as if it were about theirs. In this "defense", I see no attempt to read thoughtfully what other editors say in reply to them and revise their understanding accordingly; all I see is zero-sum mentality and WP:IDHT.
3. BabbleOnto is now justifying an edit where they said to me, You have a habit of inserting small lies into everything you say
and You're not adding anything constructive. You're just refusing to explain anything and saying conclusory statements, or lying about what you said
- all this based on a misreading of what I had actually written - because I was going to refer to a basic failure in reading comprehension
two hours later. This seems like a time travel paradox.
4. They don't bother defending themselves on this one, but just to point out the actual issue with the diff, they doubled down on their accusations that I said a material lie
, and that I lied when said that quoted the article out of context. Pointing out being caught lying
and then proceeded to STRAWMAN the rest of my comment to which they were replying. If they had read my prior comment with a reasonable level of attention, they would have understood that there were no "lies", just a misunderstanding or two in each direction. But WP:IDHT again; even in responding to this filing BabbleOnto is still insisting I did things that I quite obviously didn't do.
It is exhausting to deal with this kind of quasi-CPUSH (not quite civil, but certainly push) behaviour. The Talk page in question has seen a recent influx of single-purpose or nearly single-purpose POV accounts, and in terms of editor energy, this one certainly seems not to be a net positive for Misplaced Pages as a project. Perhaps if they edited away from Covid and US politics, their track record might improve. Newimpartial (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000
Just a quick aside to Valereee's aside: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn....
Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory currently has posts from 19 editors lacking the edits for extended confirmed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee, this is also a problem at other CTOPs, and is likely to become more problematic. I assume due to off-Wiki forums. ECR might just produce more users gaming EC. I thought it would be useful to put your aside into the CTOP template at the top of CTOP TPs. But that assumes folks read it. Walt Kelly said something along the lines of: “If only I could write, I’d write a letter to the mayor, if only he could read." This discussion is likely better off elsewhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: IntrepidContributor was just TBanned from the topic of COVID-19 and indef blocked until the accusations of off-wiki coordination made by them at ANI are retracted. Those accusations are like their suggestion made in their statement in this filing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by JoelleJay
At the very least, can we get more admin involvement on the lab leak page so trolling like this doesn't disrupt things even more? JoelleJay (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by IntrepidContributor
I have been observing BabbleOnto and while there are valid concerns about bludgeoning, I think the proposed sanctions are too much. His engagement in the Covid lab leak topic is driven by commitment to WP:NPOV, which our articles fail to adhere to, and he made the mistake of arguing with editors who were never going to listen (resulting in what looks like sealioning on his part). He's not only editor to raise issues in the topic and engage in good faith discussion, only to find themselves pulled to AN or AE disputes after staying out of the seasoning traps and refusing to capitulate to threats. In a parallel AN case concerning another editor in same topic, I suggest there may be possible off-wiki coordination , but it can also be on-wiki ().
One need only cross-reference names from Feb 2021 RfC, checking those that voted for labeling COVID-19 lab leak as conspiracy, with the names of complainants here. Contrast all these old timers with the steady stream of tens if not hundreds of regular editors complaining that our article fails NPOV, and see that their gentle approach doesn't work . Our chief complainant is already preparing his next case , and this might not be his first.
I suggest that administrators consider a 1 to 2 month topic ban for BabbleOnto to provide opportunity for him to correct his approach, while staying alert to the tactics of POV editors trying to draw them into content debates to influence outcomes.
IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by TarnishedPath
Please see this edit where BabbleOnto edited Gain of function research restoring previously reverted content and WP:POVPUSH using a shit source after they'd been told by multiple other editors in discussions here and here that the source was shit. Notably in the edit summary they wrote "Read discussion page. Manual revert. No serious challenge has been made to these changes. Methinks an admin needs to get involved...
" despite them being in a WP:1AM situation. If a clue is not gotten by the editor fast I'd suggest TBANs from both COVID and AP2 is warranted in order to cease their disruption. TarnishedPath 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Noting the editor's continued behaviour at Talk:Gain-of-function research. Refer to Special:Diff/1270316266. TarnishedPath 01:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by berchanhimez
This user was given no less than 4 chances on the talk page to stop talking about bans/other editors and start talking about the content. They have continued crying about how they're scared of getting banned... yet they continue blabbing about other editors getting banned for their bad behavior rather than refocusing on the content as requested. At a minimum a partial block from the talk page(s) in question is warranted, and it would be beneficial for a topic ban from the origins of COVID-19, broadly construed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning BabbleOnto
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- BabbleOnto, please edit your statement down further to fit within the restriction. This also serves as an opportunity to rephrase your defense, which currently is not convincing at first glance. ProcrastinatingReader's description of the situation seems quite apt, particularly
BabbleOnto replies to editors by picking out parts of an argument, interpreting it in the most disfavourable way possible
, which is currently a pretty fitting description of your response to them here, given that you zeroed in on the "superficially reasonable" part and ignored the much more serious parts of the testimony. signed, Rosguill 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Valereee in line with their follow-up response, I take Objective3000's comments as potentially a basis for community discussion rather than a call for protective action on the lab leak talk page right now. signed, Rosguill 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, having read through nearly every edit that BabbleOnto has made, I agree with the complainants that not only does BabbleOnto engage in sealioning, it appears to be almost exclusively what they do. The discussion at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)/Archive 2 exhibits perhaps even more concerning argumentation than the diffs provided in the initial report. Throughout these discussions, BabbleOnto tends to demand a standard of stating the obvious (with respect to the context of said sources) that is absurd, and continues to lawyer for such standards even when the situation becomes WP:1AM. When criticizing sources' ability to account for basic claims, I can find no examples of BabbleOnto themselves attempting to find sources that would resolve the issues they identify--this is uncollaborative behavior. There is a clear pattern of engaging in this behavior across recent US politics topics consistent with the scope of Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics/American politics. The only saving grace to BabbleOnto's track record is that none of this has translated into disruptive editing of actual articles, just unproductive engagement on talk pages. I am currently in favor of a topic ban from post-1992 American politics; if they are actually here to build an encyclopedia and not to provide a punching bag for debate club, they can use this opportunity to learn more constructive patterns of editing in topics that they are less personally invested in. signed, Rosguill 01:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to agree, this looks like sealioning. BabbleOnto, you're new here, and I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about your ability to learn to collaborate. WP works on collaboration and consensus, and sometimes consensus goes your way, sometimes it doesn't. You have to be willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you. And you absolutely must not insist everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers. I've seen editors at both the Thompson and the lab leak talks tell you they don't actually owe you an answer to your satisfaction.
- Do you think you can learn to do that? Because if you don't think you can, this may not be the right hobby for you.
- As an aside, I'm going to recommend what I always recommend to new editors who end up here: Contentious topics are a terrible place to learn. Go edit in noncontentious topics, where other editors are a lot less exhausted and have the energy to be more patient with new editors. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
| Tangential |
|---|
|
- BabbleOnto, are you planning to answer my questions above? Do you think you're able/willing to shrug, walk away, and go work on something else when consensus is against you? Are you able/willing to stop insisting everyone else keep answering you until you're satisfied with their answers? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- BabbleOnto's response understanding this as a suggestion to take a break from Misplaced Pages as a whole isn't quite what I was hoping to see. signed, Rosguill 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- @BabbleOnto, an extended break doesn't solve the issues around understanding policy. An extended break from contentious topics -- while you edit in other topics and learn policy -- would be more helpful all around.
- @Rosguill, I'd support a tban, but is AP2 enough? It seems like COVID and fringe science need to be included? Valereee (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- AP2 + COVID? I see the same behavior at the Brian Thompson article and Havana Syndrome, so COVID alone doesn't seem adequate. Oddly, the intersection of "medicine and politics" would appear to cover all affected topics but maybe that's too bespoke? signed, Rosguill 17:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Marlarkey
| Marlarkey p-blocked from Declaration of war and formally warned to be more mindful of policies, guidelines and best practices when editing CTOPs, particularly PIA signed, Rosguill 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marlarkey
User has been on Misplaced Pages (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Misplaced Pages editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MarlarkeyStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarlarkeyWeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual. My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war. In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states. In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine. I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict
Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts. I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Result concerning Marlarkey
Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. signed, Rosguill 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. signed, Rosguill 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC
|
DanielVizago
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning DanielVizago
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- DanielVizago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description,
This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.
); - 4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
- 5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary
rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources
); - 13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
- 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
- 14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
- 14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds ] and ] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of
articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- None
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- I alerted them on 28 Dec 2024
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt
. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.
Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning DanielVizago
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by DanielVizago
Statement by caeciliusinhorto
Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.
- Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
- This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
- this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)
Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Simonm223
Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning DanielVizago
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
USERNAME
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning USERNAME
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Bamdad bahar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- USERNAME (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
<In editing Alexander's family and descendants' information, editor Prince Tehran keeps deleting edits and reverting to unfounded information. A new reference has been cited in Persian, and there has been considerable research conducted to confirm that Prince Alexander had two sons (not recorded in Georgian texts - for obvious political reasons). I am respectfully requesting that this editor(Prince Tehran) NOT be allowed to make these changes (or undo the edits). In a very practical sense, its a little ridiculous to suggest that Alexander had two children in his 50's but somehow did not have any when he was younger. The data from Iranian sources is correct. !--- Here and at the end, replace Prince Tehran with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
Categories: