Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Request for clarification: User:Thomas Basboll (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Tom harrison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (acknowledged --Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC))
• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Tom harrison

Last April, User:Thomas Basboll was banned[1] from articles and talk pages related to the September 11 attack. Since then he's hardly done anything else, limiting his work to user pages. He's always civil and articulate; individual edits can seem reasonable. But his goal here has been and remains to get the truth out about the collapse of the World Trade Center. Whatever his motivation, no matter how he describes or intends his edits, their invariable result has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'. He has shown no interest in contributing in any other area; he's banned from that area; he continues his work in a sandbox, and invites others to edit on his behalf.[2] If encouraging others to apply edits he can't make himself doesn't violate the letter of his topic ban it's at least contrary to its purpose, and continually beating the drum for the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a continuing disruption. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thomas Basboll

Update: I have decided withdraw my opposition to this request, shut down the sandbox experiment, and stop interacting with editors.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure an all out arbitration is necessary. If the topic-ban applies to user talk pages and my own sandbox then I am in the wrong and will stop immediately. If it does not, I think Tom Harrison needs to provide a bit more evidence that, on balance, the "invariable result [of my edits] has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'". In the one case where a user has objected to my use of his talk page, I have respected that wish, but otherwise my suggestions have been met with understanding and have been implemented (or not) as the user I contacted chose. I have not asked users to edit "on my behalf"; I have pointed out errors in articles to them and sometimes suggested prose that I believed could express an idea they were defending in talk discussions. I'm really am just trying to help.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to John Vandenberg (below): Since I am not site-banned, I have not considered contacting ArbCom by email. Those two public appeals are the only attempts I have made to have the ban overturned.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comments on MONGO's evidence (below): The puzzling thing about the examples is that the changes I have suggested by (arguably) "proxy" remain in the articles, often made by editors on the "other side". I think the policy is clear here, and since I have not recruited new users, meat-puppetry is not at all involved. I have only contacted people who are already interested in the articles, and I have provided information that they could themselves verify. Most puzzling: in the exchange that led to MONGO asking me not to post on his talk, I actually managed to convince him that I was right, and the article has been correct ever since. MONGO himself corrected the error I was indicating [3]. So even though he himself has confirmed my suggestions (as the rules on proxying require) and implemented them, he is now suggesting that my inquiries constitute a violation of the proxy rules, i.e., rules that he himself, by implication, would have been violating by implementing my suggestion.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. As Mongo notes below, his edit involved more than the change I was proposing. But I had not raised any other issues in my exchange with him. So he implemented my suggestion among others. My point still stands: Mongo introduced an error and I pointed his mistake out to him. He then fixed it. The article was improved by my action. Though I don't think I actually broke a rule here, I think this might at least have been an occasion to WP:IGNORE it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to John Vandenberg 2 (below): Something like what you propose (editing other parts of WP to establish credibility in the community) has been suggested to me many times before, as Mongo also does on this occasion. I have never understood the argument. My editorial judgment has been rejected at the highest level (when ArbCom rejected my appeal). If that rejection stands in this topic area, why do you assume that I would do a fine job elsewhere? Assuming that my topic ban is justified (i.e., that my judgment is defective), then, the current solution of having my suggestions vetted through editors whose judgment has not been similarly impugned seems quite reasonable. But you will have to forgive me for not finding the place I have been assigned in the community especially motivating in regard to contributing to the larger project.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to John Vandenberg 3 (below): Okay, it makes sense when understood as pragmatism. But that's why I have stopped editing: the pragmatic reality of Wikipedia is too far from the principled ideal that originally got me interested in the project. I could spend hours, days and weeks trying to prove people wrong by working in other areas or at Wikisource. But, just as you economize with your time, I economize with mine. In any case, please keep in mind that Tom Harrison is asking whether my current actions (my sandbox page and inquiries on user pages) is a violation of the current pragmatic solution, i.e. the topic-ban. While it would be great of you (generous, actually) to use the opportunity to look into the original ban, my view is that even if the ban had been justified what I am doing now is within the spirit, and well within the letter, of the sanctions. Like I say, if that's not the case, I will delete the page and withdraw altogether.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to Vassyana and Carcharoth (below): I may as well be clear that I am not interested in any further demonstration of my worth to this project. Two other editors are asking that stricter limits to my contribution to this project be imposed. If they get their wish, you will simply not hear any more from me. Otherwise, I will continue, in my limited way, to assist those editors who want my help in identifying errors, assessing sources, and representing them in prose on a topic that (for reasons that need not concern anyone here) happens to interest me. I will use my account, so long as it is not site-banned, to query editors about their editing decisions so that I may better understand how Wikipedia works. Some editors do want my help; it is their work, not mine, that any further sanctions against me will affect. Those that don't want my input will not notice my presence. My interpretation of being banned "from the September 11 attack article and talk page, and the articles and talk pages of all related articles" as not covering user-talk pages and my own sandbox was made in good faith and I have made no effort to conceal my topic-ban. Indeed, I have made a point of informing all users that I have contacted of the fact that I am banned. I take very serious exception to the idea that I am "gaming" this site. Thank you very much.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: While I have withdrawn from this dispute, I would like to add a quick comment on Vassyana's answer to this issue. As I undertand the concept of WP:GAMING there is no such thing as doing it unintentionally. So I take it that granting that it may have been done in good faith is a retraction of the charge. If so, I appreciate it. I did not intentionally violate the spirit of my topic ban in order to subvert the project; I made an attempt to improve the encyclopedia within what I believe was a reasonable interpretation on the constraints of the ban. Many of my suggestions have been implemented in full view of the editors who supported my banning. My actions did not cause disruption. If they were unwise it is only because they have, predictably, been used to cast further aspersions on my motives.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Question to Carcharoth (below): Are you really suggesting that I can do a bunch of work to write nice clear sentences that might be used in the article but that I am not allowed to discuss that work with people who freely choose to engage in such discussion?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cs32en

The ban against Thomas Basboll had been based on reasons "described by Jehochman" [4]. However, Jehochman has advised Thomas Basboll as follows: "I think it might be worthwhile to write a crisp version of the article in your sandbox ..." [5]. So this is, in my opinion, best left to the community to sort out, at this point of time. --Cs32en (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

More of the same...Basboll has been topic banned from editing all pages related to the events surrounding 9/11...this includes conspiracy pages, where he has been an advocate. Arbcom may not be familiar with this issue, but I surely am, and our server space is not to be used to sidestep topic bans using personal sandboxes or others usertalk to rally a cause for which one has been topic banned...topic bans should mean just that...one is banned from the topic, regardless of the location. I have stated repeatedly that AFTER Basboll was topic banned that, based on his obvious articulateness, that he must be educated and surely...surely, he could and should help out with other areas that are not related to those he is topic banned from. I tried to encourage him to do so...but instead, he continues his fixation on this subject matter...though of course, outside main article space. WP:MEAT applies in this case...a topic banned editor, especially one who has been known to advocate fringe theories, shouldn't be encouraging others of similar POV [6] and discouraging those that base their work on known evidence...as Basboll did to me here...which resulted in my asking him to avoid my usertalk if he was going to use it for his 9/11 issues. Furthermore, major collaborative pieces should be worked on in article space in my opinion...creating sandboxes pages when we already have working long standing pages that can be improved only allows topic banned people a way to avoid sanction from being topic banned...

So can arbcom help clarify for Mr. Basboll what a topic ban implies and maybe succeed where I failed and encourage him to find some other topic to edit? I'm hoping that this is the case...--MONGO 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Jehochman below...though I surely appreciate that we don't want to suppress beliefs, Basboll is topic banned...that means banned from editing on that topic...as far as I can see, that means we don't allow them to use likewise thinking fellow editor's usertalks to rally support for their POV, especially a POV that is based on fringe theories that undermine the factual encyclopedic integrity of our articles. Furthermore, setting up sandboxes to update sections, write new articles or alter existing ones related to what the editor is topic banned from seems to be a breach of the purpose of the topic ban...so we have millions of other articles...Wikipedia exists for Mr. Basboll as a platform to advocate his fringe beliefs regarding 9/11...he has had almost zero other interest in any other area...if he can't find another area to edit and repeatedly violates his topic ban...why is he here anymore?--MONGO 03:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Examples where he has been approaching others to alter edits and or comment in articles he is topic banned from...to be fair, some of these are from those he does not share a POV with...[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [ here he comments at arbcom enforcement regarding the same topic he is topic banned for[13], here he tells one of his fellow (to put it nicely) alternative theorists all about me...[14], here he tries to defend a fellow 9/11 conspiracy theorist that is blocked [15]...I can easily produce more examples of Mr. Basboll violating his topic ban. More needs to be done to tell these single purpose accounts to go find another playground.--MONGO 03:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to Basboll above..the link he provides [16] where he claims I changed wording to reflect, as he puts it, the correct wording, only applies to the word "adjacent"..the remaining red changed text was added by me after great arguments and is reflected in the references provided. Regardless, this was part of the exchange that led me to ask him to cease using my talkpage to violate his topic banning.--MONGO 05:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman (b)

Thomas seems polite and I have been polite in return. If he's not banned from editing is his sandbox, then he is allowed to do so. As I understand, he is free to edit there. Everybody has some sort of POV. We don't ban editors for what they believe; we ban them by how they act. If Thomas supports WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V, I see no problems. If however he's playing me the fool, well, that would be a poor idea. Jehochman ^Talk 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ikip

The arbitration remedy clearly states:

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)"

Thomas's topic ban was a bad ban by an involved administrator: Raul654. Raul654 edited 7 World Trade Center‎ (16 times), argued against editors who support a controlled demolition (at least 8 times), and reverted 7 World Trade Center‎ then protected the page, in violation of Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools.

Raul654's "content disputes on articles in the area of conflict"

Thearbitration remedy states: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)" Raul654 is NOT an "uninvolved" administrator. Raul654 has edited 7 World Trade Center‎, one of the 9/11 articles. Raul654 edits show that he supports Jehochman's position.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Raul654 deletes a fact tag on the sentence: "The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage." stating "rv - well known fact" [33] Raul654's talk page comments on 7 World Trade Center‎ where he argues against those who support a controlled demolition. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Raul654 reverts 7 World Trade Center‎ then protects the page, in violation of Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools [42] Raul654 blocks editors he edit wars with This involved block is not a single incident either, Raul654 has a history of blocking editors he is edit warring with, in violation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes. See also this ANI. Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines, the arbitration remedy states: "...if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to...amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators" Raul654 did not warn Thomas before the block. The arbitration remedy states also: "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators" Thomas Basboll used a "communal approach" in a straw poll. Jehochman lost the straw poll, which meant a majority of editors agreed with Thomas's POV. Instead of attempting to build consensus, Jehochman filed the Arbitration enforcement against Thomas.

This text has never been posted before:

What is an "uninvolved administrator"?:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories/Proposed_decision#Discretionary_sanctions under "uninvolved administrator"
  "For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict."

As my edit diffs clearly show, Raul has previously participated in "content disputes on articles in the area of conflict."

Therefore I ask that the topic ban be immediatly lifted, as a highly involved administrator made it.

Raul654 have you ever had a dispute on 7 World Trade Center? The edit diffs above show clear content disputes on 7 World Trade Center. Ikip (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Raul654

Ikip is rehashing - verbatim - the same argument he put forth the last time around - the very same argument that was explicitly rejected by the one and only arbitrator to comment on them ("I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them." -Morven) To wit - I have edited the 9/11 articles on occasion, and I make sure that they remain free of conspiracy theories and other gibberish, which is fully in line with our policies about verification and neutrality. (That is to say, conspiracy theories do not produce reliable sources - they mostly rely on cutting away context and ignoring all dissenting evidence.) Thomas is an editor whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to introduce conspiracy theories into our 9/11 articles. While he is polite, his editing on those articles is singularly counterproductive, as Mongo above attests to. I was never particularly active on those articles, and my participation predates Thomas - I mostly stopped editing them by the time he started here. Which means I am uninvolved both in the sense of (a) editing on those articles, and (b) interacting with Thomas. (The arbitration committee, I believe, intended the ban to apply to the latter case). In either case, I am not involved, and fully capable of assessing the utility of a ban application. Raul654 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, to answer Ikip's question above, my involvement on 9/11 articles has been almost entirely related to 7 World Trade Center. This article is a featured article, and I'm the FA director, which is the reason it's on my watchlist -- I want to keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't decay. Most 9/11 conspiracy theories center around the destruction of this building, so it's a perpetual favorite target for conspiracy theory SPAs. The consensus on the talk page, predating its FA status and my involvement there, was that because we already have articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, the article would briefly mention the existence of conspiracy theories and link to the relevant articles, but not go beyond that to avoid giving them undo weight. (To avoid mentioning them elsewhere in the article so that readers do not get the false impression that they are credible or have evidence to support them.) My edits there have been about enforcing this consensus. Enforcing a reasonable consensus formulated by others before I got there hardly makes me an involved admin. Raul654 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that Ikip's citations of "involvement" include reverting trivia and fixing typos on the talk page, I hope it's clear to anyone reading this that his "evidence" consists of a list of all edits I've made to any 9/11 articles (and talk pages) in the last 5 years, regardless of whether or not they actually involve conspiracy theories and regardless of whether or not they relate to Thomas in any way (which they don't). And given this extraordinarily low bar for "involvement", the fact that he could only come up with about two dozen edits in the last 5 years shows that he really is grasping at straws. Raul654 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pokipsy76

1) The historical recostruction by Vandelberg is incomplete: Actually only one arbitrator replied to the request of appeal (and btw this arbitrator was asked two times to explain his position here and here but he didn't reply). Later, when the request was archieved, another arbitrator said that this kind of requests have to be asked to AN/I (so the appeal was not "rejected" but just ignored). Therefore there was a request for a review at WP/ANI where other 3 uninvolved administrators said that:

• there had been "insuffient review and stonewalling of requests for review"
• "a review of the ban decision is probably appropriate"
• "The edit does seem to reduce the overall weight provided to the conspiracy theorists in the article, in addition to moving the detailed statement of the theory out of the lead"
• "there are legitimate questions to be asked about the fairness and propriety of this topic ban"

Positions against Thomas Basboll or against the review of the ban had been expressed only by involved administrators who contributed to the ban. "Unfortunately" this request for a review was deleted by the bot after a period of 24 hours without new messages. And so Thomas couldn't have a review for bourocratic reasons - even if there was a consensus on the necessity of it since the arbotrators didn't express.

1bis) It is very paradoxical that we follow mechanically the rules when the bot delete the request and so leave Thomas banned without appeal and we now instead pretend to apply the "spirit" of the rules - not the letter - when Thomas talk with other users. It looks very much as a persecutory behavior.

2) To say (as Tom Harrison does) that

the invariable result [of his edits] has been to promote conspiracy theories about 'controlled demolition'.

is a personal and disputable point of view of Tom who as far as I can see has never had a "neutral" perception of this matter when he contributed to the pages. Even if the arbitrators would share the same point of view of Tom Harrison about 9/11 it shouldn't be relevant in their decisions: arbitration is not for disputes about article content.

3) To say (as Tom Harrison does) that

continually beating the drum for the 9/11 conspiracy theories is a continuing disruption.

is meaningless because a) nobody has even proved that thomas have been disruptive, the sanction he received was *discretionary* so it was just the personal opinion of the admin which didn't receive any support or even a review by the community, b) it is entirely possible that the suggestions of Thomas are indeed conctructive, you cannot judge them "a priori" just on the ground of your personal POV.

4) Coren says:

As a further note, I don't believe there is any reasonable interpretation of Raul's handful of edits that could lead to count him as "involved" by any sane meaning of the term.

The problem is that the arbcom has explicitely defined the meaning to be given to the term "involved" ("For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict.") and it makes Raul "involved" without a doubt. If this meaning is considered to be "insane" by somebody it is not relevant here.

--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Ikip, could you please notify Raul654 since your statement concerns him? Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Tossing up some background discussions for everyone; no comment yet. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Thomas Basboll the thread is closed as "Thomas Basboll banned from 9/11 articles, appealing to ArbCom." Thomas, did you appeal to arbcom via email? We can find the email if you can tell us when you sent it. There was a public appeal at WP:RFAR in May 2008, and a later one at WP:AE in October 2008. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thomas, your article contributions over the last 12 months are extremely light on, your userpage says you are retired, and you're doing a lot of chatting. I am seeing more noise than signal. How about you come out of retirement, focus on some supplementary topics, and then appeal the topic ban in a few months. As an example of how you could remain engaged in this topic productively, despite the topic ban, you could work on Operation Northwoods, World Trade Center (PATH station), Minoru Yamasaki, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, etc; or, for something different you could expand the archives over Wikisource (see s:Template:911). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thomas, your editorial judgment has been questioned by editors in the 9/11 topical area, a few admins, and two previous arbitrators (Raul654 and Morven) have found it appropriate to ban you from that topic. The review by arbcom in April 2008 only obtained a single opinion, that of Morven. Morven's motivations may have simply been pragmatic, as the same set of editors opined that they found it advantageous to have you topic banned. Your response to this has been to stop editing; my recommendation is that you prove everyone wrong by editing other areas. If you have problems in another topical area, that would be telling. If you dont have problems in another topical area, that would give us a damn fine reason to re-evaluate your topic ban.
    That said, it is not unusual for a person to have a problem editing in only a limited range of topics; their edits to other topical area's are fine. Even if you did (previously) have a problem editing 9/11 articles, we might decide that we can lift the topic ban because we trust that you are now capable of managing your own POV issues. Note that I am not saying that you do have a problem editing 9/11 topics; I've only spent an hour reading all the comments and looking at a few of your edits.
    Your lack of edits in other area's mean I have no option but to either a) trust the other editors opining here, or b) invest a day (or more) reviewing your edits. Perhaps you can see that pragmatism makes me want to create a third option: you demonstrate that you are able to edit productively in other areas and I will invest the time to review your edits. I do appreciate that you may not want to take this third path; but you cant blame me for trying, right? I also suggested that you come on over to Wikisource for a while, and build our collection of related primary sources. This will give you good reason to collaborate with 9/11 editors here on Wikipedia, and then the comments at the next topic ban appeal will be more favourable to yourself.
    Could someone please notify Raul654 and Morven, as they may wish to comment. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• A topic ban is a topic ban as far as I'm concerned. Using a sandbox and other users as a proxy for engaging in discussion is pretty clearly gaming the system in my eyes. Circumventing, or even dancing around the edges of, a ban is a terrible idea. At the absolute best, it shows an inability to walk away from the topic. Under such circumstances, I would strongly discourage the community and administrators from granting any allowances. Additionally, I would be opposed to any ban relief in the absence of complete separation from the topic and positive contributions in other areas. --Vassyana (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The system gaming may not have been intentional and I can accept that the actions were taken in good faith. However, utilizing a sandbox and other users to continue contributing (and advancing one's views) where topic-banned does amount to circumventing the topic ban, following the letter but certainly not the spirit of such a restriction. (This mechanical interpretation approach has been a rising concern in the community, of which cases like this are but a symptom. 3RR is the most common example, with many editors claiming that a failure to exceed three reverts either does not constitute disruptive edit-warring or is not a blockable offense, contrary to the explicit instructions of WP:3RR.) I would encourage the community to be more explicitly broad when instituting such bans at the community level and (as an individual arbitrator) I will support more clearly broad bans where topic bans are used in arbitration cases. Obviously, a topic ban is of greatly reduced value as an enforcement tool if the targeted editor is still permitted to maintain a POV fork in userspace, use other editors to proxy, and/or still otherwise engage in various discussions about the topic on-wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• If I recall correctly, I was one of those suggesting (at some point last year) that Thomas Basboll edit in other areas to demonstrate he is interested in building an encyclopedia, and not just a narrow set of articles. Failing that (and it is Thomas's choice alone), I would endorse John's other suggestions. This is not, however, to endorse making SPAs second-class citizens (that opens the door to experts working on single articles being driven off by opponents who have a more diverse editing history). What matters is, as always, the quality of the sources and arguments any editor brings to the table, their editorial judgment, and their ability to work collaboratively with others. That last one is particularly important for all editors working in any topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Following up on what Vassyana said above, I would say that proxying is bad, but a sandbox can be helpful as long as the editor in question doesn't use the talk page as a forum to discuss things with others (who then proxy edit). Carcharoth (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• In general, I would tend to encourage attempts at building consensus about a set of articles where an editor has had previous problems and from which they have been banned. However, the current attempts look more like attempts to seek out and coax possibly sympathetic editors in order to continue the POV campaign by proxy (in particular, I see no attempt to understand the importance of undue weight but only dedication to "get the truth out"). This sort of gaming is not appropriate, and may lead to further sanctions or the extension of the current ones. — Coren ^(talk) 04:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  As a further note, I don't believe there is any reasonable interpretation of Raul's handful of edits that could lead to count him as "involved" by any sane meaning of the term. — Coren ^(talk) 13:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Recuse. I live and work in New York City about 4 miles from the World Trade Center site. I will adhere to my practice established last year of recusing myself from any disputes arising from the events of September 11, 2001, in part because I was profoundly personally affected by those events and in part because giving any sustained attention to the so-called, but fantastic and worthless, "controlled demolition hypothesis" as a purported explanation for what occurred on that date invariably leaves me enraged. I will remind all concerned that any suggestion that any identified or identifiable individual played any role in a "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center buildings represents a BLP violation of the gravest nature. (I do not suggest that Thomas Basboll or any other specific editor is guilty of this offense.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, Noting that my opinion of the situation mirrors Vassyana's. Wizardman 20:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case September 11 conspiracy theories (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request by Jehochman

The sanctions in this case are being gamed. Editors who are banned start new accounts, which then must receive the mandatory warnings before they can be sanctioned. Please modify the warning requirement so that administrators may place sanctions without warnings on disruptive single purpose accounts that edit within the locus of dispute. For further reading see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bov, particularly the checkuser clerk's note on the latter case. Note that I am involved in editing these articles and have been responsible for filing the above two sockpuppet cases as well as a large number of WP:AE requests that have resulted in topic bans. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, t's often unclear who the puppetmaster is; there are so many alternatives. It's also somewhat time consuming and difficult to make a case for meat puppetry. We have to dig around and find some sort of off site solicitation. I expect that after we found the most recent incident of meat puppetry, those who use that strategy will be more careful not to leave tracks. It is much easier to say here is a single purpose account, repeating the same tired arguments, please ban it from these articles. Good faith editors are getting worn down trying to repel these accounts. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A. I'm involved so I'm not blocking anybody. I rely on other administrators, many whom have doubts about blocking somebody unless there is an airtight reason. B. WP:SPA is an essay. In the current climate, any block issued on that basis would have people up in arms. See the Abd and JzG case I filed above as an example of what most admins are fearful of. Jehochman ^Talk 21:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen, has Wikipedia descended so far that Arbitrators feel comfortable making rude (or unprofessional) comments on this page? A checkuser clerk, who seems to be tired of the endless sock cases related to 9/11 asked me to come here for help. So I did. Please address the problem. We have a passel of tendentious sockpuppeteers who can spend 60 seconds to create a new account, while it takes me at least an hour to shut them down via our bureaucratic processes. That's a very unfavorable tradeoff. If you don't like my idea, would you at least investigate what's going on and see if you can propose something helpful or constructive. Blowing me off with a "suck it up" comment is not an option available to you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, it's not in the cards for me to analyze a week of edits. (The economy is bad; my time for editing is limited.) Perhaps User:MONGO could give some stats. This page, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists/Archive, shows about 7 days worth of disruptive editors. Notice that at least seven or eight accounts got blocked as a result of that report. Thank you for suggesting more editors to help watch the articles. I posted a request for help to WP:AN a week or two ago. It's easy for arbitrators sitting here to say hypothetically what's the right, and quite another to get your hands dirty and see that the reality is not so neat. People are getting really, really frustrated and need more help. Few reasonable editors are willing to tolerate an endless stream of socks and SPAs attempting to add bogus content to WP. Most get burned out and leave, which is exactly what the troublemakers want. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayvdb, a large number of topic bans have been implemented, and even more accounts have been blocked as socks. I've done a considerable portion of the work myself (filing complaints; others process them and yes, logging is not perfect). Warnings definitely do not work. I cannot think of even one example of an editor who was warned and then said, Oh right, I see what I was doing has been wrong, and I'll change my ways. Jehochman ^Talk 05:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, I disagree with picking a friend to do my bidding when I am too involved. Instead, I post to the boards and work with whomever takes up the case. This is less convenient than summoning a minion by Gchat or IRC, but better for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, I do not beat around the bush. If I want to accuse somebody, I do. I am aware that some administrators do use Gchat or IRC to summon others to do their bidding when they are too involved or have a conflict of interest. I reject that, and am concerned that your suggestion is a step on that slippery slope. When I need administrative help, I've learned that the best course of action is to post publicly and then work with whoever responds. Obviously, if somebody is familiar with a matter from previous administrative intervention, it may make sense to go to them first. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

FloNight, your suggestion is useful, though I've already posted in a few placed and asked for help. This page is the latest stop on my tour. There aren't many admins who feel comfortable working on sock puppetry cases. We've seen examples in the past where one mistake lead to the admin being run out of town. How about a slight change to the wording of discretionary sanctions: New editors whose editing is indistinguishable from previously sanctioned editors may be subject to the same sanctions without warning. All I'm asking you to do is encapsulate existing policy, WP:TEAMWORK, in the decision. This will provide a little courage for uninvolved admins to do what's necessary. I'd like something I can point to so they won't be fearful of getting sanctioned themselves in case an apparent meat puppet turns out to be a legitimate editor who had the misfortune of repeating the arguments of somebody who was previously topic banned. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Flo, thank you for requesting additional help. That's what we need. The comments of all arbitrators have been useful. I may point to this thread in the future if any administrators hesitate to block SPA disrupting in this venue. VirtualSteve, if you'd like to help, please watchlist some of these articles. Jehochman ^Talk 15:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell, User:Raul654 has at times camped on particularly troublesome articles to clear out sock puppets. I'd appreciate that sort of service here. I've asked around but there don't seem to be enough checkusers available to provide expedited service in this high-volume sockpuppetry arena. It seems like all the forms need to filed in triplicate, punched, folded, and stamped before anybody can take action. The slowness of processing checkuser requests causes great pain to those of us who must entertain the sock puppets until they are blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tony0937 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tony0937 has been here for 18 months and virtually 100% of his editing is related to promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. Could one of our intrepid arbitrators please look at their contributions and tell us why this account is allowed to continue stoking this dispute? Jehochman ^Talk 23:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(replying to Cs32en)

That's called removing cruft, per WP:V and WP:NOR. I think it is way, way premature to discuss this at arbitration. Use the article talk page instead. "Rampage"? See also assume good faith. I've written a few good and featured articles. The content I removed would never pass review. Jehochman ^Talk 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(replying to Rlevse 20:55, 22 April) See statements by VirtualSteve and Cs32en. They apparently don't agree that disruptive SPA's can be blocked. Sorry for the threading, but I fear you won't see this otherwise. Jehochman ^Talk 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(replying to Stephen Bain 07:44, 25 April) Suck it up yourself. That's not what I'm advocating. I am requesting help with WP:SPAs, WP:MEATs and WP:SOCKs violating WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. You're playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and I'm violating WP:WOTTA. Jehochman ^Talk 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Motion

Numerous users have been blocked or banned for espousing unverifiable September 11 conspiracy theories. Any new user who appears on Wikipedia suggesting, in earnest, that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives planted by "conspiracists", may be reasonably viewed as a meat puppet of one of those blocked or banned editors. As such, they may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator.

Wikipedia is not for publishing counter-factual 9/11 conspiracy theories. We really should say enough is enough. I am tired of all the socks and POV pushers, and the enablers who want to hear them out. Therefore, I have proposed the above common sense approach. Please indicate whether you support this or not. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Status update

The most problematic article has had its semi-protection restored. This seems to have reduced the flow of disruptive WP:SPA single purpose accounts to the point that we can get back to work. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I spoke too soon

The accounts have regrouped and are now launching an effort to rename the article to their preferred version. I have commented here that we need administrative help to block disruptive WP:SPA accounts, per the fine advice I have been given below. Could you fine arbitrators please have a look at that discussion and see if you know of any administrators willing to close down the SPA/SOCK party that's going on there? Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by VirtualSteve

Comment I do not read the comment made by Stephen of "suck it up" (below) as being intentionally or otherwise rude but rather as another way of saying "take it on the chin". As admins we all know that dealing with SPAs and block evaders is part of the joy of the job. Blocking as per the evasion rules remains open to all admins (as detailed by Rlevse and others below), and semi-protection is also a suitable resort at times. Further if an admin is involved to the point s/he can't block, those admins have normally developed trusted behavioural collegial links to other admins whom they can ask to look objectively at a particular situation, and have the appropriate action taken.--VS ^talk 07:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Jehochman - When posting your responses to my comments Jehochman I expect a little better from you please. I have never used GChat or IRC in my life and I do not summon a minion (indeed I do have the ego to think of any of my fellow admins as my minions) - hence my use of the words look objectively at a particular situation and my clear indication that I am not asking for a favour but rather for someone else with sufficient tools and knowledge to interpret the situation I find myself in. Whilst I appreciate you do not actually accuse me of summonsing minions your linking of the sentences in your response makes it difficult to see that you are assuming good faith at my suggestion.--VS ^talk 13:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Cs32en has encapsulated well the inherent problems with Jehochman's suggested motion. I also believe that accepting that motion would upgrade the rights of administrators beyond an acceptable level and I oppose the motion.--VS ^talk 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment So as to provide clarity to Rlevse - Jehochman's comment here and since moved to the appropriate section by Daniel, does not in anyway reflect my thoughts on dealing with SPAs. I do not definitely know the reason behind why he makes this error - but I note again that my words above detail my belief that blocking as per the evasion rules remains open to all admins. That is certainly the approach I have taken and would suggest any admin take in the circumstances described in the request posed by this discussion.--VS ^talk 11:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Harrison

"We have a passel of tendentious sockpuppeteers who can spend 60 seconds to create a new account, while it takes me at least an hour to shut them down via our bureaucratic processes. That's a very unfavorable tradeoff." This is exactly right. Facile suggestions to follow dispute resolution, ask for an ininvolved admin, or get a buddy to do the block for you (seriously?) don't address the problem. That's why this is again before the committee. I invite bainer to model the behavior he prescribes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Question by MastCell

Would it be possible to identify a "go-to" checkuser who would be willing to look at questions of sockpuppetry on this topic on an expedited basis? This would be someone willing to field relatively informal checkuser requests from admins active on the topic, evaluate their merit, and act on them (if appropriate) rapidly. In the past I've found this approach hugely useful in dealing with high-volume sockpuppetry, and it might help here. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cs32en

I have edited on various subjects on the German Wikipedia, but my edits on the English Wikipedia are, up to this time, primarily on 9/11-related topics. So I am probably an involved editor here.

In my opinion, we seriously need to consider the possibility that flawed judgment and inconsistent reasoning on the part of some established editors have significantly contributed to the situation that we now face. People will not identify with Wikipedia, and thus will more likely tend to use distractive methods, when confronted with unconvincing arguments, or with a situation in which they perceive that policy is being misconstrued to support reverting their edits or blocking their contributions.

One example has been the recent discussion on the deletion of the word "box-cutters" from the article on the attacks of Sept. 11 [43]. While numerous mainstream media have reported this, is has since become apparent that all these reports are based on a single source (Ted Olson). Evidence such as a trial exhibit mentioned in the discussion now strongly indicates that the information from this source has been incorrect. As being published in a reliable source is an indication that a piece of information is WP:V, but not a sufficient condition in itself, the word "box-cutters" was eventually changed to "weapons" [44], along with some other changes in the text. While this discussion led to a result consistent with Wikipedia policy, there were a number of arguments put forward by established editors that clearly are not supported by policy, such as:

• "the reports at the time indicated box cutters" (note that the article did not attribute the claim to the source or used language such as "at the time, it was reported that")
• "Accepting for the sake of argument that it says what you say it does, I don't think we can reasonably use Prosecution Trial Exhibit P200054, a primary source, to over-ride the secondary sources." (i.e. even if we agree that a secondary source - in this case, CNN - is proven wrong, we still need to use it)

Other such arguments, expressed in other circumstances, have been:

• "We really should avoid foreign sources." (in a case where no useful English source was available)
• "Pretty speculative research...how surprising...lets see them get it published in a real journal. I got a bridge to sell ya. [...] Jones and co can maybe see if any of these are interested" (It turned out that this list actually includes Bentham Science Publishers, the publisher of the journal that is being discussed.)
• This was followed by the remark: "rather than arguing with single purpose accounts, why don't you go request some more topic bans over at WP:AE?"
• "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." (in relation to a claim that a known and self-identified adherent to a fringe theory has published a paper that supposedly supports this theory -- if anything, notability was the issue here, because nobody doubts that the paper exists, and WP:UNDUE had to be interpreted in the context of the fact that the article's subject, as defined by its title, is the fringe theory itself, not the subject of this theory.
• This discussion is a typical example of the editing process on these articles.

If these failures in the editorial process of the articles are being corrected, then all editors could be held to a higher standard with regard to their behavior, and genuine vandalism and trolling would be much easier to isolate, whether by community interaction or by appropriate administrative measures. --Cs32en (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the motion proposed by Jehochman

Oppose Jehochman has suggested that the policy with regard to 9/11-related articles should be changed as follows:

• "Any new user who appears on Wikipedia suggesting, in earnest, that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives planted by "conspiracists", may be reasonably viewed as a meat puppet of one of those blocked or banned editors." (proposed motion)

• "New editors whose editing is indistinguishable from previously sanctioned editors may be subject to the same sanctions without warning." (reply to FloNight)

Both proposals imply that administrative actions would no longer be based on the behavior of editors (i.e. whether they engage in constructive discussion, support their suggestions by arguments related to Wikipedia policies, etc.) but on what they think or what they believe in. Calling everybody who shares a certain belief or supports a certain argument a "meat puppet" is not only a misinterpretation of WP:MEAT, but also a thin veil to disguise this approach. --Cs32en (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Jehochman's section "status update"

Jehochman's statement that the semi-protection of the article has significantly reduced editing by non-autoconfirmed users is misleading. There have been two edits by non-autoconfirmed users during the time the article was not semi-protected. During the same period of time, there have been approximately fifty edits by Jehochman and three other editors, with very little explanation or discussion of these changes on the talk page. --Cs32en (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Jehochman's section "I spoke too soon"

One of the editors involved in the discussion has now been blocked for what are, as far as I can see, valid reasons. It would, however, be very helpful to clearly indicate the specific reasons for which a sanction is being requested. Any controversial discussion is even more difficult if people who take part in it are at the same time unsure as to whether any requested sanctions could be applied to them.

My view of the discussion on the renaming of the article is as follows:

• A recent discussion, resulting in the change of the article's name, lasted for only 24 hours.
• As the discussion was rather short and possible terminated without actually seeking broad consensus, it is legitimate that editors are continuing to discuss the name of the article. (No edit-warring is happening.)
• The current discussion is taking place on the WP:NPOV noticeboard. Given that there is not a broad consensus among the involved editors, and that there are concerns about the correct application of established policies and guidelines on the part of some editors, I consider it appropriate took seek the opinions of uninvolved editors on a community noticeboard and to present the arguments there. — Cs32en (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New developments (Cs32en (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

New developments In less than 40 minutes, Jehochman has deleted 6790 bytes, or more than 12% of the text, from the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories (15:31, 15:33, 15:34, 15:36, 15:52, 15:56, 15:58, 15:58, 15:59, 16:01, 16:03, 16:07, 16:08, 16:09). This happened without any attempt to discuss the changes on the talk page, and numerous parts of the article that have been there for weeks, if not months or years, have been deleted. Jehochman has requested a semi-protection of the article at 13:00 today, and has received a reply to his request at 14:35. [45] This may have triggered the ensuing rampage. --Cs32en (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Jehochman has filed an A/E request against me on 24 April, at 20:32, and has withdrawn that request on 25 April, at 00:23. I'm collapsing this subsection as it is of less relevance to the present request from Jehochman regarding the prior arbitration case on 9/11-related articles. --Cs32en (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tony0937

I think that I am an involved party here and Jehohman's proposal makes me feel very uneasy. He has suggested by that I could be banned for talking about a peer reviewed paper. I suppose I am a SPA and I think that I have heeded the advise posted there. I have read the policy on Verifiability and the Guide Line on Reliable sources and I cannot see the problem. I do not believe I have broken any rules that would constitute a reason for a ban and yet I feel intimidated. Tony0937 (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Protonk

First things first. The requested motion is flawed on face. It doesn't make any sense to treat new editors with a certain POV as meatpuppets of some ur-conspiracist. It is far more likely that there are several sockmasters, dozens of people unrelated to those sockmasters who intend to disrupt wikipedia, and yet more people who geniunely hold these views and don't have a connection to either of the two previous groups. Applying MEAT to all three groups under the assumption that they are all puppets of the first group will generate bad will, unpleasant but valid unblock requests and consternation over admin overreach.

So we should reject Jehochman's motion to ammend (whatever) the case.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty frustrated with the response he is getting from some members of the committee here. The 9/11 conspiracy articles are under an arbcom ruling because they are the locus of dispute between our editors and editors who have disrupted the encyclopedia, wasted time and don't have any real interest in contributing to Wikipedia broadly. It is the poster child for requiring arbcom actions. Because of the nature of the conspiracy and its adherents, online advocacy of conspiracy theories will almost always outstrip reliable sourcing on the theories themselves. the number of editors involved makes it difficult if not impossible to reach a consensus on the talk page which reflects reliable sourcing on the issue and hold-outs (either SPAs or not) make it difficult to commit an edit to those pages which has less than unanimous support. The nature of the theories themselves cause their exponents to disbelieve reliable reporting on the subject and misconstrue or misrepresent sources which may provide limited support for some facet of the conspiracy.

We know all this. What you are hearing now is an editor who claims that these sanctions are insufficient or at least burden responding administrators too much for the effort required to trigger them. Instead of telling him to "suck it up", why don't you draw up an alternative motion which doesn't BITE the newbies as much? Protonk (talk)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment Why can't you just block a sock as a block-evading sock? No warning needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

@Jehochman: If you can warn based on SPA criteria, why not block on SPA criteria? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suck it up. If you allege sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, then of course you have to provide evidence to support your assertion. If it can be established that someone is evading a block, a ban, or a sanction by way of puppetry, then they can be dealt with in the normal fashion under the sockpuppetry and blocking policies, there is no need for special remedies. --bainer (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jonathan, if it is unprofessional to defend the fundamental values of the project in response to someone who appears to be genuinely advocating that the criterion for banning should be "that they disagree with my POV", then I welcome the label. --bainer (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Community norms already provide for the blocking of block evading sockpuppets and disruptive single-purpose accounts. The arbitration remedy does not alter those standard practices. Arbitration rememdies must be interpreted within the framework of community norms and with a dose of common sense. All the remedy does is explicitly direct administrators to utilize a full range of sanctions to bring the topic area under control, with basic advice about good admin practices. Generally speaking, giving someone fair warning and some explicit guidance about what to avoid, or how to improve, is hardly controversial as common good pratice before heavy sanctions or blocks. In other words, just follow the usual means of dealing with such potential sockpuppets and SPAs. I have some extended thoughts in a broader context at: User:Vassyana/Splitting Hairs. --Vassyana (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Protonk, with all due respect, you're asking us to do the impossible (unless I am completely misunderstanding you). There is no possible way for us to expand the remdedy while being less BITEy. The remedy already provides completely open-ended authorization to impose sanctions with but a single warning. We could direct administrators to provide new editors with more guidance and more opportunity to prove themselves, but that obviously would increase the burden of enforcing administrators. Alternatively, we could remove the requirement for warnings as suggested by Jehochman, but that obviously would be a good deal more BITEy. However, there is no possible way for us to grant administrators greater leeway to act while simultaneously reducing "bitten" newbies. A significant part of the problem being faced has a great deal more to do with broader community issues than with the arbitration decision. As examples: a) An administrator corps that is not keeping up with the growth of the project. b) A shortage of administrators intervening in difficult areas. c) An increasing tolerance of wikilawyering (and an accompanying slavish dependence on procedure). d) A growing dependence on checkuser in sockpuppet investigations. These are but a few examples of serious issues that have been growing over a long period of time. Unfortunately, there is little to nothing that ArbCom can do about these problems (except perhaps to point them out). For better or worse, solutions to these broader problems will have to come from the community. --Vassyana (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• This is a perennial problem - how to distinguish good-faith SPAs (that need education and pointing to FAQs, and that might become productive editors) from disruptive ones (that need blocking), and how to avoid burnout for those watching an article. The only suggestion I can make is to ask for more assistance in dealing with the topic area, provide the evidence (as bainer says), and to make sure that those appealing blocks are told that this is a contentious area and that they should edit other areas for a set amount of time (probationary topic ban?) before returning to the topic in question (if at all). This might seem like reducing the barrier for new editors to edit, but for contentious topics, this might be needed. Have topic bans restricting editing to the talk page been tried? Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jehochman, could you (or someone else) analyse a week's worth of editing and gets some stats for the scale of the problem? Or failing that, give a rough estimate of numbers of (in your opinion) disruptive accounts? Carcharoth (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, It takes far more than 60 seconds to edit in a way that requires this case to come into play, and the log indicates this decision hasnt been invoked often, which suggests the warnings are doing their job, or people arnt updating the log. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Largely agree with Vassyana. The Committee does not have any additional ways to stop people from using socking or tendentious editing. We are aware that many controversial topics have similar problems. The fresh blood of more uninvolved admins helping in these all these areas is always needed. Placing announcements on AN or AN/I and the wiki-en-l mailing list might help attract some additional assistance. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Jehochman, I sent an email to the Functionaries-en mailing list highlighting this thread. Hopefully raising awareness will prompt more uninvolved admins to get involved. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: This doesn't seem to need ArbCom involvement.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Per Vassyana, the remedies in the case are additional to those available to administrators generally and do not supersede them. Administrators are empowered to block disruptive single-purpose accounts if they are harming the project. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, agree with Vassyana et al. Wizardman 19:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; I'm not sure I agree with my colleagues here. I wouldn't blink if SPA that jumped immediately in the fray of an active, controversial dispute be blocked liberally with a good explanation provided they are unblocked if they acknowledge the problem area and agree to steer clear of it. Basically, it's a balancing act between newbie love and preventing disruption to the encyclopedia— and some areas (9/11, I-P, and a few others) are so volatile that the putative benefit gained from a new agenda-wielding editor is entirely offset by the added instability.

  That being said, I don't think ArbCom can do much about it directly. — Coren ^(talk) 03:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Recuse. I live and work in New York City about 4 miles from the World Trade Center site. I will adhere to my practice established last year of recusing myself from any disputes arising from the events of September 11, 2001, in part because I was profoundly personally affected by those events and in part because giving any sustained attention to the so-called, but fantastic and worthless, "controlled demolition hypothesis" as a purported explanation for what occurred on that date invariably leaves me enraged. I will remind all concerned that any suggestion that any identified or identifiable individual played any role in a "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center buildings represents a BLP violation of the gravest nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Statement by DrKiernan

The process to develop a procedure for deciding Ireland article names has stalled. All three moderators have resigned. However, options for the next phase of the process have been suggested.

I would summarise the comments of those editors participating in the current discussion of the options on the wikiproject talk page as:

Approve option 1 (or a version of it):

1. BrownHairedGirl 02:35, 8 April 2009
2. Fmph 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
3. DrKiernan 07:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Kittybrewster 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
5. BritishWatcher 10:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Rockpocket 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Bastun 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Evertype 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
9. ras52 11:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK with option 1:

1. Jack forbes 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose option 1:

1. Redking7 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
2. MusicInTheHouse 11:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerned with option 1:

1. Mooretwin 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (because it tackles each problem in turn to try working towards a global solution rather than tackling everything at once)
2. RashersTierney 21:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (because it might lead to option 4)

That's at least a two-thirds majority in favour of trying option 1.

I ask:

1. that ArbCom amend remedy 2 with the addition of: If the panel should fail to develop a procedure, then ArbCom will impose one.; and
2. that ArbCom impose option 1 of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Options for next phase as phase 2 of a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles, without prejudice to further phases of the mechanism or procedure that may arise in the future in the course of discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, I would add myself to 1 above and also comment that no mediation took place, poor participation is in part being due to people waiting for something to happen. BHG but a good set of statements in place, but this is not an issue for passive mediation. --Snowded (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm sorry that the Committee's outline of how a solution to this dispute should be reached, without dictating a result, has apparently not succeeded or led the parties to an agreed resolution. Awaiting further statements before opining on how to proceed from here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• We are currently working to select new moderators for the project. Credit goes to FayssalF for ensuring that this was being addressed. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Sebastian, PhilKnight, and Edokter for volunteering for the difficult task and wish them well. Please bear with us for a few days while we sort things out. (This does not preclude evidence that another approach may be needed or suggestions for an alternate method of handling the situation.) --Vassyana (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Ireland collaboration. New moderators have been appointed and discussion is being opened at the project talk page to review the possible participation of an arbitrator. --Vassyana (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
• Per Vassyana. I am concerned, however, that the number of participants in the process and the discussions seems to be declining and is less than in previous iterations that tried to find a resolution to this issue. Any solution to this will not work if there is insufficient participation in both the process and any final naming discussion or vote or other process. Hopefully establishing a new set of moderators will help. Carcharoth (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case The Troubles (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• SirFozzie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notified

Statement by SirFozzie

The Troubles, are not as contentious as they once were, thanks to the tight lid on edit-warring that was created by User:Rlevse here, that subjected the whole subset of articles covered by The Troubles to a 1 RR. This has blunted a lot of the constant edit-warring. However, six months after the fix was applied, someone wants to rip the band-aid off and let the (metaphorical) blood flow anew. User:Sandstein has stated that he will not act on AE requests regarding this remedy, because it is not an ArbCom remedy. We've already seen several folks using IP's to edit war and then when the IP is blocked, use throw-away accounts. The sanctions are needed.. there are 10+ sections in the archives where this is used since December alone.

So, despite my utter distaste of time-wasting bureaucracy such as this, would the ArbCom please vote in the following as a formal ArbCom remedy, as posted by User:Rlevse:

• All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
• All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
  • Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
• Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
• As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, I leave it to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: {{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.}}

List of times the Rlevse sanctions has been brought up on AE (there are another 5-10 where it's been mentioned in passing, but these are the ones that refer to the 1RR rule itself.)

[46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], and the two latest ones on AE. If the Committee would look at the history of AE from archive 30 or so on, usually 2 or 3 or 4 sections per archive will have to do with this series of articles,

I don't believe that a new full fledged ArbCom would do anything more then to spend a couple months of time with the same parties arguing in the same way. Instead, what should be done is apply common sense. Use the Rlevse sanctions, and keep the peace in an area where there will be no peace if not applied.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

If one admin chooses not to act on a particular enforcement request, it doesn't stop another administrator stepping in. Whilst Sandstein might not agree and therefore decide not to take action, if another administrator believes the editor in question has broken the case remedies (In this case it is enforcement of discretionary sanctions) then that is up to them and they may block for that. From what I can see, Sandstein hasn't said he'll overrule other administrators and I suspect he wouldn't even challenge other administrators if they made blocks as part of Rlevse's restriction. It looks like Sandstein merely doesn't agree and doesn't feel comfortable enforcing the decision - that's his prerogative and feel free to simply block if someone goes against the 1RR restriction. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I'm commenting in my capacity as admin patrolling WP:AE and responding to enforcement requests there. Ryan is right in that I won't (and have no authority to) overrule any admin enforcing the "Troubles" case as he or she sees fit. However, the "Troubles" decision does not, as Ryan seems to believe, provide for discretionary sanctions. Instead, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Probation for disruptive editors, it provides that disruptive editors may be put on Wikipedia:Probation and, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Enforcement, that these editors are then subject to 1RR. That is the arbitral decision that can and should be enforced at WP:AE, including by me.

The section entitled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case, which purports to put all articles in the area of conflict under 1RR, on the other hand, is not an enforceable arbitral decision, since it was apparently never voted on by the Committee. Its author, Rlevse, has confirmed this at [58]. That is why I will not act on enforcement requests concerning it.

I recommend that the Committee:

• remove the section Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case from the case page or leave a comment so as not to cause others to mistake it for an operative remedy, and
• if it feels that this is warranted (I've too little experience in this area to comment on this), properly amend the case to provide for either a general 1RR restriction on the area of conflict, or for discretionary sanctions as with other comparable cases.  Sandstein  05:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment with respect to bainer below

It's good to know that this is a community sanction, although it would have been helpful if this had been noted somewhere. It is probably not advisable to add a sanction of this type to the "log" section of the arbitration page without any indication of its provenance or authority. Still, since WP:AE is not intended for the enforcement of community sanctions and arbitration pages should probably not contain non-arbitral remedies, I maintain my recommendations above.  Sandstein  08:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Sandstein has summed up what I was going to say. Perhaps both sanction-schemes would be useful? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, yes, the community sanction was inappropriately written and logged into the ArbCom case instead of the appropriate location. I do wonder whether there would still be a consensus supporting such a measure if the sanction discussion was more appropriately titled; although I was active at the time, and particularly interested in sanction discussions, I know I wasn't aware of it. If the remedy is needed, ArbCom should vote on it and put it into the case - at least that would resolve the matter re: logging.

Unless the remedy is written into the case by ArbCom (in which case AE is more appropriate), ANI is where complaints should go - as with any other requests to enforce community sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

As the unlucky administrator who started the long chain of events that lead there, I want to add two things. One, discretionary sanctions do exist in that dispute area, they are editor targeted however. Two, the broad 1RR was proposed as an alternative to using probation. It has, I believed, helped significantly in the topic area, and has set an objective standard for that all users can be held up to. I strongly urge the committee to consider endorsing the community remedy.--Tznkai (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Domer48

Having opposed the sanctions, or I should say how they came about I must concede that they have had a positive effect. They have reduced the edit warring and encouraged discussion. POV warriors have been marginalised with disruptive editing being quickly closed down most of the time. Some Admin’s with a particular bias (admin’s can and do have biased opinions) have been reluctant to address the actions of some editors but the 1RR has proved itself despite this. We all know what the sanctions entail, and have clarified through experience what 1RR is and how it operates. For example, a number of reverts without intermediate edits in between is considered to be 1 revert.

So what I’d suggest is that the sanctions be placed on a separate page with the block log transferred to it. It should include:

• All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.
• All editors on Troubles related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
• Clear vandalism may be reverted without penalty
• Blocks may be up to 1 week for first offense, 1 month after the first 1 week block, and then ban options may be considered.
• As there are hundreds of articles potentially subject to this, it is up to the community to tag the talk pages of the articles and to decide how to go about that. Code for a template that can be used for that is here: {{Consensus|This article is currently subject to '''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case]]''', as laid out during a previous [[WP:AE]] case that closed October 05, 2008. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines on this talk page first.}}
• These final remedies have been linked to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republicanism and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case.

It should also include what we mean by 1RR, so there is no ambiguity. If it is felt that criteria no.1 is not clear enough expand it. The template be changed to direct editors to the appropriate page, including a link on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case in case any templates are missed during the page change. That’s my 2 cents worth, as to simply remove the sanctions would be counter productive.--Domer48_'fenian' 09:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Request Could we have links to the 10? related AE threads since Rlevse augmented the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  It looks like this community-based remedy is doing the trick. I am happy to leave it as Stephen Bain suggests, or write it into the decision as Sandstein suggests. Could someone please notify the regulars who have been affected by this remedy. e.g. Sarah777, Manticore126, Domer48, BigDunc, and Mooretwin. They may have valuable views to share on how this remedy plays out. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Commment I'm flattered something I wrote that I thought was basic has been so useful. I'm willing to make a motion if it looks like enough arbs will support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sandstein is correct that the 1RR restriction is not part of the decision, nor is it a discretionary sanction supported by the decision. Rather, it was a community-based remedy, established by consensus during this discussion. There is nothing wrong with this. There are a couple of issues though:

1. the notice of the 1RR restriction on the case page (and on article talk pages) should be altered to describe it as a community-based remedy, or removed to some other appropriate page, to avoid confusion;
2. there is unfortunately no convenient venue for enforcement requests on such community-based sanctions, personally I have no problem with arbitration enforcement being used just as a matter of convenience, but otherwise ANI would make do.

--bainer (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see no reason for ArbCom to intervene with a community-imposed sanction. (Indeed, I would encourage administrators and the community to impose sanctions as necessary without the intervention of ArbCom.) Additionally, an administrator could simply warn someone who is edit-warring or otherwise disruptive that the topic area has seen a lot of problems and that disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (It would be advisable to be polite and clear about the problem, directing the editor to any relevant policy pages and giving a bit of guidance about how to better work with others on Wikipedia.) Upon a repeat performance of disruption, the person can be sanctioned or blocked, without bureaucratic hurdles or reliance upon the particulars of an ArbCom decision. I have no particular objection to issues being raised at AE for areas subject to arbitration enforcement, but ANI would be appropriate if the AE regulars find this undesirable. --Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Noting Carcharoth's comments, I have no objection to logging on the case page, for the sake of a unified log location. However, community based general sanctions can be referenced at WP:SANCTION and community imposed individual sanctions can be referenced at WP:RESTRICT. --Vassyana (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Nothing much further to add. Will vote on a motion to write the sanctions into the case if needed, pending feedback from those John asked to be contacted. But leaving as a community-based sanction (per bainer's description) would also work. Carcharoth (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • One concern with a community-based sanction is the lack of anywhere to log sanctions. It is not acceptable for such restrictive sanctions not to be logged. Future admins or arbitrators trying to review the situation need an accurate log of actions taken and sanctions issued, whether following arbitration cases or using community-based sanctions. Strongly suggest logging (or continuing to log) at the case pages for now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment No admin is required to enforce any Wikipedia policy or any sanction (be it an ArbCom or Community Sanction) but that does not stop the sanction from being enforced my other admins. Unless there is a problem with the Community sanction that can not be worked out by the Community, I see no need for action by the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Concur with Stephen Bain and FloNight (and kudos to rlevse).  Roger Davies ^talk 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; I think that the tenor here is that this community sanction has ArbCom's imprimatur, and that AE is a logical place to bring enforcement (even if strictly out of scope). — Coren ^(talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, agree with Flonight, since it's a community sanction then there's nothing we really need to do. Wizardman 20:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kaldari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Durova

It's a pleasure to be filing a positive request. As the Committee is aware, ScienceApologist has been working on an improvement drive for the optics article. He wishes to see the revisions imported to en:wiki and bring the page to featured article status. This requires three things:

1. GFDL-compliant importing. Kaldari has volunteered to undertake this.
2. Limited proxy editing to the article and related processes of GAC, peer review, and FAC. Sceptre and I have agreed to undertake this.
3. Permission from ArbCom for the above.

So proposing the following case amendment:

ScienceApologist's ban is amended to permit limited proxy editing related to the optics article. Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova have permission to proxy for ScienceApologist by editing the article, its talk page, and at process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

Kaldari and Sceptre should be adding their agreement to this propoal shortly, and ScienceApologist should be emailing the Committee to affirm his endorsement of this request. Respectfully submitted, Durova^Charge! 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

Affirming Durova's post. Probably no need to affirm that I would seeing as I announced on AE my intention to if asked. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Kaldari

Affirming Durova's post. Although I would like to clarify that I think it is important for ScienceApologist himself to make the import edit, which would require a 1-edit suspension of his wikipedia ban. The reason behind this is that this rewrite is a significant contribution to Wikipedia and 10 years from now it shouldn't take an archeologist to figure out who contributed the writing (indeed it should be possible for a bot even to make the determination). This is both to insure proper attribution per the GFDL and per convenience for future editors. This is not strictly required per the GFDL, but it is the proper way to handle this, IMO. Doing attribution in edit summaries is far from ideal, especially when we're talking about a complete rewrite of an important article (mainly because such attribution is not machine-parsable). I would be willing to handle performing the 1-edit unblock and reblock and overseeing the edit.

Statement by Paul August

I support this request. However I submit that it would be much easier to simply allow ScienceApologist to make the edits directly, to wit, I propose the following motion:

ScienceApologist's ban is amended to permit editing related to the optics article.

Paul August ☎ 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Striking my proposed motion. Paul August ☎ 04:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Coppertwig

I agree with bringing the content into Wikipedia, but I disagree with Kaldari's proposed method of doing so by having ScienceApologist do a single copy-and-paste edit. For GFDL purposes, I believe it would be preferable for an admin to transwiki the article, then merge the page histories, which I believe would result in SA's edits showing up in the page history as being by SA. The GFDL situation is complicated because SA is not the only person who has contributed to the article at Wikisource. If SA or anyone else does it as a single edit, I suggest listing the names of the contributors in the edit summary; but that's not as good. See the discussion at Talk:Optics, especially the comments by Moonriddengirl, for example here; she's very knowledgeable about copyright policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Very well; I've proposed a motion below. Please keep in mind that you are still responsible for the edits you make in your role as proxies; so please use your best judgment to determine whether the edits being requested are reasonable before making them. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Recused. --Vassyana (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Motions

1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

Support

1. As proposed. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Needs to include mention of the proposed brief unblock. Other than this, though, the rest of the ban needs to be served out. If it was a topic ban, it could be altered. But this was a site-wide ban for conduct problems. Suggest also that care is taken with the editing history here. Please make sure the edit history makes sense. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. In passing I want to note that I am favourably impressed by ScienceApologist's way of coping with his block. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
6. With the usual caveat that the editors that perform the actual proxy edit take responsibility for it. — Coren ^(talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Wizardman 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. (As recused) --Vassyana (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Also recused, due to ScienceApologist's role at the New York chapter meetings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• SilkTork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Ebonyskye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notifications:

• User_talk:Thatcher#Clarification_request
• User_talk:Ebonyskye#Clarification

Statement by SilkTork

I have userfied an article, Blood of Angels deleted in an AfD for User:Ebonyskye. I have since discovered this archive: User talk:Ebonyskye/Archive1 in which the user has been notified by User:Thatcher that a checkuser found a relationship between the Ebonyskye account and that of User:GuardianZ who was banned from editing the Midnight Syndicate article. Thatcher also informed Ebonyskye that the ban extended to related articles including Nox Arcana articles. The article I userfied is a Nox Arcana article. My query relates to the wording of the ArbCom case. "GuardianZ (talk · contribs), and Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) are banned indefinitely from Midnight Syndicate." is clear enough. However, "No present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP, may edit Midnight Syndicate or associated articles. " is less clear. Under the ruling is GuardianZ/Ebonyskye free to edit Nox Arcana articles? SilkTork *^YES! 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Fred Bauder has been notified: User_talk:Fred_Bauder#Clarification_request_on_wording_of_Midnight_Syndicate_ArbCom_decision. SilkTork *^YES! 18:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedy: As the two main parties in the ArbCom case, SkinnyMcGee and GuardianZ/Ebonyskye have not engaged in edit warring since the ArbCom decision; that the general feeling is that there should be equality in this matter; that the wording of the topic ban allows for some ambiguity; and that an indefinate topic ban is an unusually harsh sanction, especially given, as far as I am aware, that the conflict took place on one specific article: that the ban on the specific article, Midnight Syndicate, remains, but the wider topic ban is lifted for all parties. SilkTork *^YES! 11:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarity on Newyorkbrad's Motion. Could "any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban" be changed to "any administrator, other than [name], [name] and [name] who should bring potential infringements to the notice of a neutral aministrator, may reinstate the topic ban". I am not clear if I am an "involved administrator". SilkTork *^YES! 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fred Bauder

The issue is whether the petty edit warring continues or starts up again. Fred Talk 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

Relevant Arbitration enforcement archives: [59], [60]

Although this checkuser request was formally declined, another checkuser answered privately that Ebonyskye was related to GuardianZ (search link for arbs). It's possible that this was an error, of course, but I believe Ebonyskye is a "present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics, under any username or anonymous IP" and so falls under the topic ban passed as remedy 2. I notified her of the topic ban here, logged here.

It is apparent from Ebonyskye's contributions that she has been evading her topic for a long time. Interestingly, I find a complaint by Ebonyskye that Skinny McGee (talk · contribs) was evading the same topic ban, which resulted in Skinny McGee receiving a stern reminder. Why Ebonyskye was not similarly reminded and sanctioned, I have no idea.

Most of Ebonyskye's edits relate to the band Nox Arcana (including a considerable amount of self-promotion, which is not really an Arbcom matter) and she has largely (but not entirely) avoided direct edits to Midnight Syndicate where the dispute arose. (Skinny McGee seems to be a current member of the band while Ebonyskye is, or is associated with, a former member, now a member of Nox Arcana.)

One possible response would be to narrow the topic ban to encompass Midnight Syndicate only, to allow Ebonyskye to edit Nox Arcana-related articles, although this seems somewhat inequitable to Skinny McGee and essentially rewards Ebonyskye for being able to escape sanction for repeated violations of the ban over the last 18 months. Another possibility would be to lift the topic bans entirely on a trial basis, contingent on continued good behavior by all parties. I am somewhat concerned about this approach, having just discovered the diff of Ebonyskye reporting Skinny McGee's violation while knee-deep in her own repeated violations, and I would be interested to hear Ebonyskye's views on why she thought it was appropriate to report the violation in August 2008 while she was at that same time engaged in editing multiple articles that fell under her topic ban. (I expect she will say that she never was GuardianZ; I point to the checkuser log I noted above, and also to her contribs, if she is not GuardianZ she is still clearly a related editor. There are ways to correct a mistaken topic ban, pretending it does not exist is not one of them. She needs to come up with a better answer than that.) Thatcher 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ebonyskye

Thatcher, I still state I am not and have never been any other editor, not GaurdianZ, not Skinny McGee, no one.. I believe I sent you an email two years past with my home address, after which I immediately began to get spammed. (Not blaming you, just maybe opened up my email to this inadvertently). So I removed my email from Wikipedia and even got a new email. Anyway, the reason I reported on Skinny McGee was because I could. He falsely accused me of making edits I did not make then falsely accused me of being another editor. I simply returned the favor, except that he was proven to have had 4 other accounts, whereas I did not. And Thatcher, you yourself said that your discision is based on editing I had done.I did not start having a problem with McGee until he started with me. Per the suggestions of other editors (who also turned out to be sockpuppets - MarckChase, and unsigned others) I began looking for reliable sources to back up some of the statements on the Nox Arcana pages. I added what I thought was appropriate, describing the music, the instrumentation, and was slammed for it. So I looked for more sources. Then I got slammed for having too many links. More seasoned editors and admins love to slam on newer editors to "be bold" and "cite" etc, and when we DO, then we get crap for citing too much and for being too bold. This is just stupid that now there's actually a "committee" to decide if anyone properly looked into something I complained of 2 years ago. You didn't care then, so why now? And I can't even recall all the edits I may have made 2 years back and really don't want to waste time looking through history and trying to recall what I was even thinking then. How about this solution. Delete all of it, every scrap for BOTH bands. Who cares, right? Ebonyskye (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I admit, it IS frustrating to be falsely accused. So, how do I go about proving who I am, or in this case, who I am not? It's like deja vu, I know I asked this of Thatcher and we (or some admin and I) traded emails, but that seemed to go nowhere. Also, I would like to suggest some AFDs. Where might I go to do this? I read the procedure, but since I am banned from editing certain articles, I cannot follow said procedure. There are plenty of articles needing RS or that are far less notable than any I have edited. Since I am discouraged to create, perhaps I can help clean up. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

As the filing party who requested the Midnight Syndicate arbitration, I found SkinnyMcGee to be the more cooperative of the two primary disputants and subsequently awarded that editor a barnstar for creating a DYK about an unrelated (and uncontroversial) topic. GuardianZ was the primary aggressor in the original dispute. At no time in my observation did GuardianZ demonstrate a commitment to adapting to site standards or to Wikipedia's larger mission. To the extent that I noticed followup (which was quite some time ago), either GuardianZ or someone closely associated with that individual appeared to be openly contemptuous of project norms. Although I have not encountered the Enonyskye account directly, if the Committee were to demonstrate lenience toward either side of the dispute I would encourage them to either extend it toward SkinnyMcGee or else equally toward both parties. Meat/socking and topic ban evasion should not be rewarded while the party who demonstrates improvement remains under full sanction. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything the arbitrators are seeking? Could put together an updated report with diffs etc. if there were an indication of what the Committee is interested in. Durova^Charge! 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To Carcharoth: I am not seeking a lifting of SkinnyMcGee's editing restrictions. Raised that solely to illustrate the point that a reduction of SkinnyMcGee's restriction would be more justifiable than the present request.

To Sam Blacketer: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#Addendum:_Blooferlady and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate/Evidence#GuardianZ_is_Blooferlady.2C_who_happens_to_be_Joseph_Vargo.27s_manager_and_girlfriend. GuardianZ was indeed covered by remedy 2.

The case in a nutshell is this: a close associate of a former Midnight Syndicate band member came to Wikipedia and attempted to convert the article into an advertisement for the talents of that former band member. The former band member had subsequently formed a competing band of his own. The primary aggressor first registered as Blooferlady, and later either edited as (or proxied via) GuradianZ. After the case ended either Blooferlady/GuardianZ or a close associate evaded the ban. Respectfully disagreeing with Fred Bauder's characterization of the edit warring as 'petty': this is a real world business dispute that migrated onto Wikipedia, so modifying the remedy could affect the business prospects of either or both bands. Durova^Charge! 22:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. Please bear in mind that this case was decided more than two years ago and that none of the arbitrators who participated are still serving on the committee, so give us a little time here. Please give notice of this request to Fred Bauder, who wrote the decision, as he may have a view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm looking into this; my thanks to Fred and to Thatcher for their thoughts. I'll wait another day or two to see if anyone else wants to provide input, and then decide whether to propose any change to the current remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I've been away for a few days but will try to post a motion tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Offering a motion, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• As NYB, just waiting to see if there is any further comment. --Vassyana (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Brad for working on a motion for this. Hopefully, we should be able to wrap this up within the next few days. --Vassyana (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Of the original parties to the case, Indigo1032 and Peacekpr are no longer active. I note that User:Dionyseus is actively editing. Could they be notified of this in case they want to say something? Turning to the main two parties, I see that User:GuardianZ edited from February 2006 to 10:22, 12 March 2007. User:Skinny McGee edited from October 2006 to 04:18, 5 August 2008 (Durova, if you want sanctions on Skinny McGee lifted, they will have to start editing again and file a separate request). Looking at User:Ebonyskye, the first edit was at 08:19, 2 March 2007, with the account created earlier that day. I've also read the checkuser cases and the AE archived threads and skimmed through the arbitration case and decision. I think it is reasonable to conclude from this that Ebonyskye is GuardianZ or someone editing with a similar agenda (note principle 5 in the case: "In cases where it is difficult to identify the identities of users and anonymous editors due to use of a number of accounts, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behavior of the user rather than their identity"). I think the AfD Ebonyskye is talking about is this one (Blood of Angels is a redirect to a section in that article). I think the key here is for Ebonyskye to state directly (without going into detail) whether they have an undeclared conflict of interest with either the Midnight Syndicate or Nox Arcana articles, and if so, whether they will abide by a restriction on editing either or both articles, or would agree to any of the proposals made above by SilkTork and Thatcher. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
• I wonder if we would be needlessly adding to the problems needing rectifying if we took this issue much further. I think that Ebonyskye is probably the same user as GuardianZ but it is far from clear if he was covered by remedy 2 in the original case - specifically because I don't see any reason at present for assuming that he was an employee or associate. Secondly and more importantly his edits seem to have been uncontroversial for some time. While arbitration decisions are intended to stop disruption of the encyclopaedia, if the disruption stops for another reason we should take cognisance of that fact and be willing to step aside. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion

Explanation of motion

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate, which closed in January 2007, this Committee found that several editors had engaged in extended edit-warring and disruptive editing on Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, and related articles. The disputes appeared to stem from real-world disputes concerning the history of these musical groups, with which these editors were or are associated off-wiki. As a result, two named editors as well as all others associated with the groups were topic-banned indefinitely from editing this group of articles.

More than two years have elapsed since the topic-bans were imposed. During this period, there have been some allegations of sockpuppetry, but in general terms the level of edit-warring and disruption on the articles has decreased, reflecting that the topic-bans have had their desired effect. Now, however, it has been suggested that we consider relaxing the topic-ban in whole or part.

The editor misconduct that led to the imposition of the remedies was serious. However, two years is a long time on Wikipedia, and it may be that the editors who were previously restricted are now capable of editing these articles in compliance with all relevant policies. This would include, among other things, avoiding edit warring and disruptive editing, editing only from a neutral point of view, minimizing edits that reflect the impact of any conflict of interest, and discussing controversies that may arise in a civil fashion on talkpages. In addition, it can be hoped that the passage of more than two years may have helped to alleviate any real-world feuds or bitterness that led to the original problems.

Understandable concern has been expressed that lifting the editing restrictions will lead to a resumption of the original problems. Accordingly, we should not simply terminate the remedies. However, in an effort to balance the competing considerations here and to allow a fair chance to evaluate the effect of our extending a second chance to this group of editors, I offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion

The remedies (1 and 2) ordered by this Committee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate are suspended for a period of 90 days. During this period, the editors who were previously restricted by these remedies may edit without topic restriction. However, they are instructed to comply with all applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines in their editing, particularly those discussed in the original arbitration decision. Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account.

During the 90-day trial period, should any of the previously restricted editors engage in edit-warring, POV editing, or other misconduct on the articles in question, any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban against that editor or impose another appropriate sanction. Unless the misconduct is blatant, a warning to the editor should first be given.

As the end of the 90-day period approaches, a request for permanent termination or modification of the remedies may be submitted for consideration by this Committee.

Because there are 15 active arbitrators, a majority is 8.

Support:

1. Proposed for consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Sounds fair. Wizardman 15:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
3. NYB provides an excellent rationale and the motion seems fair. --Vassyana (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Vassyana. --bainer (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Carcharoth (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Brad, the remedies you point to name Skinny McGee, who last edited in August 2008, and GuardianZ who last edited in March 2007. I'm aware that Ebonyskye is considered to be either GuardianZ, or someone with a similar viewpoint, or someone mentioned under remedy 2 ("present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics"), but as Ebonyskye denies they are GuardianZ, we need to make clear that this proposed remedy applies to Ebonyskye regardless of the truth of the matter. You also say "Each of these editors is also instructed to edit these articles from only a single account" - again, this is only hinting at things here. If this is aimed at Ebonyskye, that needs to be made explicit. I can't support this motion unless Ebonyskye is explicitly mentioned. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The aim of the Arbitration/Requests/Clarification was to see if Ebonyskye was able to edit Nox Arcana related articles. The motion above would allow Ebonyskye to edit such articles if Ebonyskye is also GuardianZ; if Ebonyskye is a "present or past employee or associate of Midnight Syndicate, Nox Arcana, or Monolith Graphics"; or if Ebonyskye was drawn into this by accident. The end result is the same. SilkTork *^YES! 18:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SilkTork's interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Still a few scenarios not covered, but this is fair enough for now. Carcharoth (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

---

• Could "any uninvolved administrator may reinstate the topic ban" be changed to "any administrator, other than [name], [name] and [name] who should bring potential infringements to the notice of a neutral aministrator, may reinstate the topic ban". I am not clear if I am an "involved administrator", and others may also wonder. SilkTork *^YES! 08:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall assume that I am an uninvolved admin unless informed otherwise, and so am able to act directly if I notice any problems. SilkTork *^YES! 18:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I know of no facts inconsistent with that. Without more, having taken prior enforcement action does not constitute involvement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. SilkTork *^YES! 08:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to Amend Prior Case: DreamGuy 2 (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• Promethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Varbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) diff
• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) diff
• Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) diff
• DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) diff

Statement by Promethean

Per [61] - It seems that the vast majority of DreamGuy's incivility stems from heated debates WP:AFD. Given this, Is it possible to use secondary sanctions such as page/namespace bans when there is a clear link (as determined by an enforcing admin) between a certain page/namespace or forum and his violations of his behavioral editing restriction. In this case we are requesting a 2-6 month ban from WP:AFD as determined by a mentor.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to DreamGuy: I wish to note that DreamGuy's 1rr restriction is not as voluntary as much as he is trying to deceive it to be. It was mandatory in return for an early unblock from one of his numerous previous incidents. I also note that he seems to think that discrediting an IP user who initially brought the extent his misconduct to light will in someway weaken the case against him, which it does not. He also makes ad homenium arguments against other users and does not address the issue of his conduct   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to DreamGuy: The 1rr is mandatory because you agreed to it in return for an early unblock, Its mandatory because you cant just start ignoring it. You said you would abide by it and now you have to wether you want to or not, that is what mandatory is, look it up in Wiktionary if you wish. Oh and I note that your the one who has a editing restriction they have violated around 30 times recently, not I, so please stop trying to discredit me as it wreaks of baiting. And I with to note that this is not a personal dispute, Until a few days ago I didnt even know you existed on this earth (never loan Wikipedia), But today I find you making ad homenium attacks against an IP user who reported your gross misconduct and blatant violations, So now I'm following up  «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Arcayne

DreamGuy has not followed either the letter or spirit of the ArbCom behavioral restrictions. To date, he has accumulated almost a dozen temp blocks for violations of civility, which would seem to indicate that the short-term blocks are not sufficient to the task at hand, as DG has chosen to ignore these restrictions, arguing each and every time that the fault lies with others. His behavior has not improved substantially since the AE restrictions were set in place. While it would be easy to call for an indef block and finally be done with the matter, DG's often quality edits barely equal the overwhelming BITEy and uncivil nature of his edits and edit summaries (which stifle discussion and chase away editors both new and old). The AE sanction calls for a year block; I think that something approximating half that with a mandatory period afterwards with a mentor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to DreamGuy: I think he is distorting the numerous complaints against his actions and behavior. Note that the one diff supplied presents the single case where it was found that his behavior was not in fact at fault; DG's cherry-picking conveniently overlooks the many, many other times he has been reported, found at fault and been subsequently blocked. This is not about me, as I have never encountered him in AfD; frankly, I try to avoid interacting with him.

How many voices need to join the chorus before DreamGuy realizes that almost all of us are singing the same song? It might be that the anon is a blocked account - until the checkuser is done, we AGF that it is not. Either way, even a broken clock is right twice a day: DG has had dozens of interactions with folk that take issue with his behavior. The problem is not with us. The 1RR step is to be complimented, but if it cannot be coupled with civility and a willingness to play well with others, the improvement strikes me as somewhat shallow. We all have users we have had bad interactions with, but we are talking about dozens of experienced users and admins here. Pointing the finger at everyone else only works to a point; they may be imperfect, but what does it say when they all say the same thing about the same user? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

It disheartens me that some people are willing to jump to a conclusion over there before I even had a chance to respond and are willing to take the accusations made by an anon IP (extremely likely to be a indefinitely banned editor User:Azviz) at face value. Actually looking into the edit diffs provided there shows a good percentage of no bad behavior whatsoever -- use of word "Pshaw" in a response, patiently explaining that claims in a BLP need reliable sources, good faith disagreements about reliable sources. Any of those edits that could be accurately described as uncivil were as part of wikihounding by that banned editor, a likely reappearance of that editor under a new name, and some extremely aggressive and uncivil actions taken against me by others. ArbCom is about solving problems, right? Not about letting edit warriors bait and use ivil POV pushing to ultimately prevail. Banning me from AFDs just mean that the editors in question -- all of them major warriors in AFD related maters -- get to continue their bad behavior not only with one less person to take a different side but knowing that they can target other people for similar wikihounding and actions in hopes of getting them blocked too.

Frankly, if any sort of action is going to be taken against me, it also needs to be taken against the others involved, who were far more uncivil, and seem to be violating a whole string of more important policies, like sources on BLPs, getting around bans, and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Arcayne seriously overstates his case. He has a long history of filing false accusations against me out of some revenge motive over something that happened from years back. His claims about the block lengths are simply false. The escalating blocks system set up would get nowhere near a year. It's supposed to escalate, and I don't think it's ever gotten beyond a week, and the length of time is supposed to reset. I should also point out that I voluntarily limited myself to 1RR, so I am on more restrictions than what the sanctions originally called for. Arcayne seems to want to try to fool people into thinking some longterm block is called for, when in actuality this is just another case of the people complaining just hoping to game the system so they can continue their own bad behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And I finally figured out who Promethean is and why he is so set on trying to get me banned. Apparently he is upset that I objected to him non-admin closing an AFD as allegedly having consensus for "Keep" when there wasn't even a majority of votes there that called for "Keep"ing the article. He got all upset and said he wants to see me banned from AFDs, and this is part of his strategy toward that end. When a brand new IP editor first started making these accusations on ANI, he ran with them and strongly resisted anyone looking into that IP for being a banned user. And he also doesn't have a lot of room to be complaining about other people for incivility. DreamGuy (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Promethean: "Mandatory in return for"...? No, not mandatory at all. I suggested it myself, volunteered to do it, and the block in question was almost over so I had nothing to gain by doing so other than to try to improve things. I did not have to accept it, as I could have waited out the block. Nothing about it was mandatory. But, again, are you here to try to resolve conflicts or just to try to give a spin on things so you can get someone blocked you do not like? I addressed my behavior over on the ArbCom page. You haven't addressed your own behavior or that of anyone but me. Conflict doesn't happen in a vacuum, and it can't be solved by people trying to use blocks as a tool to prevailing in a personal dispute. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case: WP:RANDARB (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• User:TallNapoleon

• User:ChildofMidnight ([62])

• User:J Readings [63]
• User:Karbinski [64]

• User:KD Tries Again (already posted here)

• User:Skomorokh [65]

• User:Snowded [66]

Statement by TallNapoleon

I would like to request that my topic ban on editing Ayn Rand related articles be lifted. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done on Rand related articles, including major ongoing consolidation and cleanup being led by Skomorokh and J Readings (please see Template:Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk, which has become a central hub for these efforts). Currently, my limit to talk pages is severely limiting my ability to improve the project, as even in the most uncontroversial of cases I have to ask for other users to make the change, which is frustrating to me and, I am sure, them. Were the committee to lift this restriction, I would voluntarily place myself on 0RR (excepting, of course, vandalism removal), would avoid making any controversial edits without first gaining clear consensus via the Talk page, and would make sure to avoid involving myself in any edit wars. Thank you for your consideration. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, I only listed myself because I don't believe this directly affects other users. I did post a link to this on Template:Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk, and if the Committee likes I would be glad to notify all other members of the original ArbComm proceeding. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I originally posted this request at the suggestion of Skomorokh, who is I'm sure tired of having to make noncontroversial edits for me that I could largely make myself (I was originally planning to just ask for permission to tag articles).

The best place to see my involvement would be at the cross talk page, where I've started actively hunting through the "darker corners" of the Objectivism-related articles. There are a number of these articles, and they tend to be are extremely poorly written, of dubious notability, and POV. Many are in need of being merged or prodded.

In terms of the kinds of edits I would like to be able to do:

First, I would like to be able to add tags to articles. This would help tremendously with sorting.

Second, I would like to be able to PROD and AFD articles. As this has the potential to be controversial, I would discuss any such move on the cross-talk page before doing so.

Third, culling inappropriate material. There's lots of this stuff in the Objectivism section. We just recently finished a cull of a couple of different sources that turned out to be nonnotable and/or self-published (books by Ronald Merrill and James S. Valliant). There is also, for example, the quotes section on Romantic Realism, which despite being an article about a topic that extends far beyond Rand consists only of Rand's quotes (also IIRC quotes sections are discouraged).

Fourth, fixing blatantly obvious POV, for instance, as shown here. I had to ask other users to make that fix despite the fact that it was totally non-controversial--it's never Wiki's place to say that someone's arguments are "oversimplified". I also repeatedly notified the talk page about edits from our problem IP (see EdJohnston's update to WP:RANDARB), e.g. [Talk:Ayn_Rand/Archive_36#Changes here], which frankly I would have fixed on my own.

Fifth, I intend to make grammatical and format fixes, and be the grammar Nazi I was raised to be.

Sixth, in those cases where I do decide to be bold (which will likely be rare) it will be done on a section or subsection level, one piece at a time, without trying to rewrite whole gigantic articles, making it easier for other users to comment and edit changes and for consensus to develop.

Seventh, I intend to implement changes where consensus has been reached.

In terms of if other editors believe I overstep myself, I do not presume to tell ArbComm what decision they should make, or what sanctions they should place on me. I would suggest that the thing to do would be to either bring it back here or to go to an admin. Admins and ArbComm are really better suited to answer that kind of question than I am. If lots of my edits are being reverted, I think the thing to do would be to look at context. Are my edits based on consensus and it's just one person reverting, are my edits a case of being WP:BOLD in the face of no consensus (which to be honest is not the best idea on many of these articles) or are they directly against consensus? One is not my fault, one is potentially problematic, and one is definitely problematic. But I'm not planning on breaking my word on this. I intend to work for consensus, to make universally acceptable changes, and above all not to edit war, which is what my original sanction was for. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I think Karbinski was pointing out the kind of edits I might make (or oppose) if I were not banned. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Karbinski. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick question to Vassyana--could the motion make clear whether or not I would be permitted to revert vandalism? TallNapoleon (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by KD Tries Again

I have been spending some time trying to help with the Rand-related articles recently, and I can confirm TallNapoleon's statement that there is an immense amount of editorial work to do. It would be very helpful to have him back on board.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Statement by Snowded

Edit warring has continued on the article, but with new editors. Articles of this nature have significant issues on questions of weight and verifiability and attempting to deal with them simply as behavioural issues of the editors involved is at best a short term solution. Current editors have carried out far more RRs that KD ever did. I have no objection to his request, he has always been careful to attempt a NPOV and to properly source material in a field where he is knowledgeable. --Snowded (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry only just spotted this. RR as in 3RR etc. Since the Arbcom ruling edit warring has continued. My point was that there has been a lot worse behaviour than exhibited by TN since the ruling which has gone unpunished. I was not referring to KD. I am supporting TN being reinstated, although I think he should not be under any special restrictions. --Snowded (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Karbinski

A couple examples of edits he may have made to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) here and here. --Karbinski (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As well an example of an edit to Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - here - that he objected to being reverted. --Karbinski (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• I will be implementing the below motion and closing this thread shortly. AGK 13:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• There is a question of what effect this will have on the editing environment. If you could please inform the current active contributors of your request, it would be appreciated. Opinions of current participants would be helpful. (That said, I would give fair warning to any who might comment that while reasonable objections and opinions are welcome that this is not an open forum to slag on other editors or complain about the "evils" of one side or another.) If you could, please better illustrate the kind of contributions you intend to enact. Could you link to a couple of examples of changes you would have made? Can you provide a few links to show your participation in recent discussions and additionally highlight a few broadly accepted changes that were implemented where you took part in the preceding discussion? It will also help our determination if you better clarify what sort of restriction you are looking to volunteer. Can the restriction be enforced, as per normal, by any uninvolved administrator? If a lot of your edits are being reverted, should this be considered against your limited mainspace participation? If a portion of your edits are seen as controversial or pushing the line, should that be considered against your participation? How would you expect violations of the restriction to be treated? Should your restriction revert to the mainspace prohibition? Should you be blocked? Should you be placed under another restriction? Any information and context that you can provide will help us make a determination. --Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • TallNapoleon seems to be have a good awareness of what boundaries he should respect. His request provides a suggestion for very strict editing conditions. No objections have been lodged, but some editors believe this would be of benefit and all indications appear to support that position. As such, I have proposed a motion below. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Reverting blatant vandalism does not count for the purposes of our conduct rules, such as WP:3RR. I see no reason why this restriction should work differantly from the normal handling of the matter. --Vassyana (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Question for Snowed: what do you mean by "RR" and why are you referring to KD? This amendment request is about TallNapoleon. And a question for Karbinski - I'm not sure what you are saying here. What are your diffs showing? Are you objecting to TallNapoleon's restrictions being lifted or are you saying he has been editing the articles instead of the talk pages? The explanation by TallNapoleon makes sense - the question to Snowded still stands. 19:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, Snowded. I think some restrictions are still needed, and have voted to support the motion below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Motions

1) The topic ban imposed on TallNapoleon (talk · contribs) (see WP:RANDARB#TallNapoleon topic-banned and warned) is removed. In place of a mainspace topic ban, TallNapoleon is subject to a zero-revert restriction (0RR) on Ayn Rand and related articles for the remainder of the six-month duration. He is instructed to seek talk page consensus before undertaking any potentially controversial edits. TallNapoleon is encouraged to continue his efforts to develop a functional consensus and improve articles related to the subject.

Support

1. As proposer, per my comments above. --Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Support; TallNapoleon seems to have improved and is working well with editors on talk pages. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Wizardman 21:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
9. bainer (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
10. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Motion enacted Tiptoety ^talk 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motion to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• See this discussion for background. There's an ambiguity in the decision resulting from the wrong term accidentally being used. The definition of the scope was intented to extend to all articles related to the conflict, or edits related to the conflict made to any other article (cf. the definition of what the biographies of living persons policy applies to). --bainer (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Motions

There are currently fourteen active arbitrators (excluding one recused), so eight votes are a majority.

1) In remedy 1.1 ("Area of conflict") of the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case, "... the Palestine/Israel dispute ..." is replaced with "... the Arab-Israeli conflict ...".

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
3. --Vassyana (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
6. That was my reading, and clearly the intent. — Coren ^(talk) 13:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Recused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Motion enacted - Tiptoety ^talk 23:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: User:Shutterbug (June 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Statement by User:Shutterbug

I was topic banned in the Scientology arbitration (the one that is all over the media right now). The Arbitrary Committee says:

2) All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses.

Where do I find the IP addresses covered by this? Which ones exactly "are to be blocked"? Please clarify. Shutterbug (talk) 05:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to FT2

FT2, no, this is not "equally to all users". This is for users who allegedly edit from a "Church of Scientology IP Block", which - quite inherently, I guess - would only be used by members of the Church of Scientology, whether they are new Wikipedia editors, established ones or not registered at all. It is a measure punishing a group of people solely based on their chosen religion. The media - lots of "reliable sources" - report that the "Scientologists are banned from editing Wikipedia"[67][68]. Can someone please clarify what this means in real life? What "IP Block" are we talking about here [69]? What are "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology"? Shutterbug (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

 Note: This comment was initially added in FT2's section; I have shifted it to its present position and added the "Response to FT2" formatting. Please edit only your own section. Thanks, AGK 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Roger

Roger, I might refer you to what I said in the ArbCom. Packing up and leaving is not an option. Also hiding isn't. Shutterbug (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to FloNight

FloNight, thanks for the clarification. I did not follow the ArbCom much in the past weeks so I learned about your decision from the media and went to the Church to asked some questions how their internet lines are set up now, in 2009 (it was a proxy/firewall system several years ago). Well, the three locations I checked use dynamic IPs (DSL line) in one place, fixed IPs in another and the third place where I could get an answer used a proxy/firewall with a fixed IP. That's why I asked. It means who ever edits Scientology-related articles in the future will be subject of witch hunting again and keep Checkusers busy. BTW, I also checked with several staff that would know if anyone from the ArbCom, Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation had contacted the Church in the course of this whole procedure. Negative, no communication at all. So the Arbcom did an "arbitration" without even inviting the participation of those who are effected by its decision. Shutterbug (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to FT2

Thank you for the explanation. This unfortunately shows that you do not have insight in how the Church of Scientology works and who is doing or should be doing what there. This could have been helped by contacting them but the ArbCom chose not to, thus triggering off one of the bigger slander campaigns against the Church in years. Thanks much. As a church member I am disgusted about this project, as a Wikipedia editor ("editing is a privilege"?) I would say those Wikipedia policies better be applied, not arbitrary blocks and bans. But we will see how this develops. I keep on watching. Jay Walsh[70], in any case, did say this on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation: Blocking users or groups of computers is “the last course of action” that the arbitration committee takes after communicating with both sides involved.[71]. Shutterbug (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Durova

Propaganda by leaving out time. We have nothing to talk about. Shutterbug (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Coren

Thanks, I think that settles my question. Shutterbug (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to FT2(2)

We have been over this. I consider it very immature behavior indeed not to get in touch with those who are affected by general punishments and somehow the Wikimedia Foundation, Walsh, was informed incorrectly to this extent. This is not the spirit of Wikipedia and blocking a whole group from editing does not produce better articles. Anyway, Coren summed it up and that's how it is. Thanks for your time. Shutterbug (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by FT2

As a community, we tend not to provide to users forbidden to edit or restricted, a full list of "IPs they cannot edit from". As you yourself are (as you rightly say) topic banned, and also a bunch of IPs closely related to CoS editing are blocked, the question is likely (as Roger says) moot.

This isn't specific to "you". It applies equally to all users and any dispute, whose actions are such that an IP range needed to be blocked to prevent their improper activities. That is quite an extreme measure, and is not taken lightly.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Shutterbug

It is in fact equal to all users. Any user whose actions are sufficiently disruptive, will be told eventually "sorry, you can't edit on our website". Users are also told (and have been for years):

• If we cannot distinguish users sharing IPs, then we may treat them all as socks or co-ordinated editors, and
• If an IP range becomes sufficiently disruptive, then we owe no favors, it will be blocked until such time as we feel it is no longer at risk of being a source of disruption.

In fact the CoS is not being "punished". Whether as an organization, or by extending facilities to its members, or both, the CoS appears to have had its computers used, for a range of disruptive editing behaviors that are not permitted here. Possibly they endorsed, facilitated, or enabled it, possibly it really was just a bunch of users they allowed onto their systems. All organizations are responsible for the usage of their computers when it impacts on others. If you run a library and your computer is used for pornography or hacking, it will be blacklisted even if you as a librarian were not doing these things. So the ranges that might be called upon for this disruption, are blocked.

In making that decision, the nature or name of the organization is not significant and unimportant in and of itself. The sole factor is that despite past cases, its IPs continue to be a persistent source of harmful editing. To save you worrying that CoS might be being picked on, note that range blocks are applied in many cases of disruption and vandalism, where they are needed to frustrate easy access by other disruptive individuals or groups.

Wikipedia editing is a privilege, not a suicide pact; persistent known "high risks", or sources of disruption, are not necessarily desirable in this encyclopedia project. If there are "good faith" users who can and have faithfully followed all of our policies every time they edit Wikipedia, then as the Committee have said, IP block exemption may be applied for by those few.

Past actions have not yet met with a substantive change for the better. We can be fairly sure CoS knew about them; it's extremely unlikely that arbcom cases and blocks wouldn't be "known" internally, that they don't track the articles on them, have no awareness of their own computers' usage over 4 years, or that in all that time not one person of any standing in 12 million members was involved in editing or got to hear about the blocks or past cases.

If CoS had been serious about not wanting to have this action imposed upon them and upon all who edit from CoS related computers, they have had the option several times to desist, or to impose conditions on those using the computers. Evidently, according to the evidence, they did not realize it was necessary to manage their computer usage, chose not to prevent the activity, or did not do so effectively. Either way this is the result, and it is a response to disruption, not a "pro/anti" anything. We would (and have) done the same to schools, libraries, and other highly disruptive ISP ranges, when these have acted as a persistent source of disruption.

As for the media, they are free to report this or call it what they like. If you want to read what it really is, then the ruling is open to reading by everyone on the planet.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment (2)

Shutterbug, whatever your expectations of the internet and people's behavior on it, here at least we look for adult behavior. That includes mature understanding to all editors, that expectations exist and apply. To the extent we don't get it after warnings and dialog, we protect the project and move on. From your perspective a number of scientologists have persistently taken action that despite requests and warnings, has ultimately brought the CoS into disrepute. The Church doesn't get to play the part where they counter "it's just a few bad apples", because CoS' own equipment and IPs were used for the purpose.

I suggest that if people at CoS feel this result isn't something that they generally wanted, then they collectively have a high level of power to make it extremely clear to a wide range of adherents that it must end, here and now, and editing according to Wikipedia norms will be the only acceptable behavior endorsed to adherents due to the risk of harm. CoS officials -- global, regional or local -- between them have the power to make that statement publicly and formally, and they have the power to mean it or just mouth the words. They have the power to regulate the IPs they collectively manage or not. SoC members may show it matters to them to listen to this, or doesn't matter. (So, of course, may your opponents, but that isn't your personal concern any more.) We have taken the action we usually take to protect the project; they may now realize their error and change course, or show by inaction that it wasn't very important to their Church after all. But be assured, the personal feelings of the Church are not at issue here. What is at issue is procuring a move towards good neutral editing and appropriate conduct on this website in the scientology topics, if on no other sites on the planet.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

Regarding Shutterbug's comments:

I did not follow the ArbCom much in the past weeks so I learned about your decision from the media... BTW, I also checked with several staff that would know if anyone from the ArbCom, Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation had contacted the Church in the course of this whole procedure. Negative, no communication at all. So the Arbcom did an "arbitration" without even inviting the participation of those who are effected by its decision.

It's particularly odd to see this complaint coming from Shutterbug. Contrast it to Shutterbug's declaration on 9 December 2007 at RFAR:

I am not going to leave voluntarily and I will continue to use a) my own computer, b) public computers, c) my wireless laptop, d) computers in the Church of Scientology and any station I please.[72]

An analysis of that statement, juxtaposed against prior news coverage from 2007, has been in my evidence since December 2008.[73] Additionally, it was Shutterbug (formerly User:COFS) who was the principal subject of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS first filed in April 2007, and later the arbitration case of the same name: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS.

Evidently, for over two years this person has not held him- or herself accountable either for having failed to abide by Wikipedia's policies or for having failed to inform the organization whose reputation s/he was endangering. Over two years ago I attempted to explain to this person that Wikipedia's open edit and public history structure meant s/he was risking a much bigger public relations problem than the legitimate problem s/he was trying to fix. That caution, and remedial suggestions which followed, were met with open contempt. That reaction continued even after events proved empirically that those cautions were correct. It can hardly come as much surprise, that more than a year and a half after the Arbitration Committee passed Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Responsibility_of_organizations, the capabilities it outlined have finally been implemented:

Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Passed 10 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Forget for a moment what organization this is: if it were a county government, or a sporting goods manufacturer, or anything else, this individual's Internet access privileges would long since have been curtailed on the organizational side. Wikipedians are volunteers who can (and have) blocked editing access from any organization up to and including the United States House of Representatives.[74][75] It is entirely incidental that in this instance the organization happens to be a religion. It certainly is regrettable that things have had to go so far, and as a gesture of good faith I repeat my standing offer to nominate any Scientologist's biography for deletion upon request, if it meets the dead trees standard.[76] If Shutterbug and the Church of Scientology are willing to assume their share of responsibility for the events that led to this impasse, and if they take good faith measures toward correcting the problems that led here, then I would gladly initiate a motion to modify and/or lift the restriction. Durova^Charge! 01:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Let it be noted that I never endorsed any of the Scientology case workshop proposals to restrict the Church of Scientology from editing, and even spoke up on behalf of Scientologists' religious freedom.[77] I mentored Cirt not because of his views, but because he was willing to admit his mistakes and mend his ways. To extend a similar offer toward the other side of this case is not 'propaganda'; it is fairness. Durova^Charge! 15:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This request should be archived later today, provided there are no further comments. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• As you're topic-banned, isn't this moot?  Roger Davies ^talk 09:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• First, Shutterbug, since you are topic banned this is beside the point for you. To the more general question, in order to edit the Scientology topic from internet access provided by the CofS, users are instructed to have one account that they use for all their editing on the topic (preferably this would be their one main account for all Wikipedia article editing on all topics), notify the Arbitration Committee so an IP block exemption can be given, and to edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration. The exact ip address/ranges (given to the CofS by an internet provider) are not important for these editors to know because they may or may not change over time. The important aspect of the situation is for them to notify the Committee of their intent to edit from internet access provided by CofS so that they can get an IP block exemption. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• I see no reason to expound on the technical details of the implementation of this remedy. If an editor edits from CoS premises, it suffices to know that the IP addresses from which they edit may (and indeed, should) have been blocked and that an IP Block exemption will be required. There is no need to inquire preemptively since IPBE is explicitly granted on a strictly needed basis. — Coren ^(talk) 14:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Moot for this user. Not helpful to the encyclopedia in any case. Not germane to users who may qualify for IPBE no matter what the technical details. I consider this question closed. The more interesting question is the one FT2 raises above: whether an address may be considered Scientology even if not indisputably registered as such. Cool Hand Luke 07:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: User:Anynobody (June 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

Statement by Anynobody

I was topic banned in the recent second Scientology arbitration case, for stuff I did months before the first Scientology arbitration case which occurred in summer 2008.

• Evidence 1 a diff from 02/2008
• Evidence 2 a diff from 01/2008

There is something fundamentally wrong with banning me from this topic since not only was this "evidence" ignored in the first case but I also haven't violated the terms given from that case.

Reply to Coren

Accordingly, I'm uncertain what, exactly, this request is asking for. Put simply I'd like to continue editing any article I please. Banning someone from editing a topic should be a last resort, and since the arbcom didn't say I was pushing a POV in the first case I'd argue that we haven't quite reached the last resort. (If the arbcom ruled I was pushing a POV, and I continued to do the same thing, a ban would make sense. That isn't the case here.)

I totally understand that at first glance it might seem I had been ...been consistently pushing a specific point of view... Honestly though, the only POV I'm "pushing" is what's in the sources - every edit I made was as a result of what our best sources say. (Secondary sources like Time magazine and the LA Times, as well as primary sources like the US Navy.) The fact is these sources are unpopular with Scientologists and it took a great deal of time and effort to maintain them in most Scientology articles. You aren't saying I should just let editors with a positive view of Scientology remove info this easily sourced?

As regards mentioning my "harassment" of Justanother the point I am trying to make is that I disagree with the arbcom's first ruling which was affirmed in this case. Since he was banned by this arbcom for the same behavior I was trying to call attention to it is especially irritating that the same committee would affirm my attempts to solve this problem SOONER was harassment. Anynobody(?) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Replies to Wizardman and Cool Hand Luke

Gentlemen I've ALWAYS used ALL information from what we consider reliable sources. Articles about Scientology feature in depth coverage of its negative aspects. Are you saying we should ignore the bulk of what the sources say about a topic because some people don't like what it has to say? (For example a Time article called The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power obviously is going to say things Scientologists don't like, and might just make anyone citing it look anti-Scientology.)

If not, would you please explain how someone could use info like Time's, the LA Times, Wall Street Journal, or any of the other dozen or so reliable and non-biased sources without appearing to support the points in them? Anynobody(?) 02:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Other topic bans from same case

I noticed that some of the editors banned, on both sides, haven't edited for quite some time. For example CSI LA last edited in 2007 and the same goes for Orsini Why are these two being topic banned after having escaped scrutiny (or even participation) in the first arbcom case AND not made an edit since 2007?

None of the graphics I made are meant to disparage anyone or anything and directly reflect the available sources. The image of DC-8s arriving on Earth for Xenu was meant to replace an already made illustration created by modifying a photo of NASA's DC-8 in space with the word Xenu on its tail.

Lastly, this arbitration reaffirmed that I previously harassed Justanother. I submit that the whole allegation if harassing Justanother (aka Justallofthem) stems from my attempt to get a WP:RFC/U going regarding his behavior. After the last arbitration I've not had any real contact with him, and he's been banned for the same type of behavior I was trying to call attention to in the first place. WP:HA#What harassment is not says A user warning for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. I've never called for him to be banned or demanded punishment, all I asked for was a RFC when it appeared he was having similar problems with several editors through giving the community an opportunity to comment. Anynobody(?) 02:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shutterbug

Anynobody, this a cumulative decision based on all your "bad deeds". I am curious to see how the article develops without us. Let the clueless rule! Shutterbug (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Milomedes

Either there's more to the case against Anynobody or there isn't. From only what's posted within the case pages, which isn't much, I don't know.

I looked at each "POV" diff (two) and each "disparaging" graphic (five). The diffs are fairly ordinary-looking edits, and would seem to be POV only if not reliably sourceable. The graphics are documentation of a type permitted as original research or describable primary sources. Two of the graphics would seem to be disparaging (by the editor) only if they weren't based on reliable sources. I don't know if they were or weren't based on reliable sources in the details, but in the current article, the LA Times seems to back the core issue that Anynobody was editing.

If these edits were based on reliable sources, then Anynobody must have done something notable within the article talk pages that merited the "POV" and "disparaging" charges. Did he? I don't know.

The fact-finding mentioned that prior arbitration determined that Anynobody harassed Justanother. I looked at that case, and it determined that Anynobody "complained to and of Justanother with great frequency and persistence". Well, now that Justa* has been banned from the entire project, one might reasonably conclude that Justa* was a frequent and persistent problem under the radar. In any case, with Justa* gone, a remedy against Anynobody inclusive of that reason lacks a preventive purpose, so I suggest tagging it with a note of 'No longer relevant to a preventative remedy since Justa(names) has been site banned by another remedy of this case'.

My tentative conclusion is that there is either no substantive case against Anynobody, or it's a case that's been presented with insufficient specificity. If there is no substantive case, the topic ban and restriction should be rescinded. If there is a substantive case, please present it so Anynobody can either defend his actions, or avoid doing again whatever he supposedly did that was so bad it deserved a topic ban. Milo 01:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Just because it confused me the first time I read it Anynobody (talk · contribs) is not the same person as A Nobody (talk · contribs). MBisanz ^talk 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• This request should be archived later today, provided there are no further comments. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused, in accord with my recusal from the relevant arbitration case. --Vassyana (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• The point of the topic ban remedies is to remove those editors whose editing has been consistently pushing a specific point of view from the problem articles entirely. It was not intended to only remove the current participants in the dispute, or to create a "power vacuum". I should point out that the restriction should not be onerous to any editor who no longer edits the topic given that it simply codifies status quo. Accordingly, I'm uncertain what, exactly, this request is asking for. — Coren ^(talk) 01:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• My view is that the first case was fundamentally unfair to the community for not topic banning you. Wikipedia must not be a battleground, and this topic ban is part of the package to remove past edit warriors from this field. You have no restriction with any topic in the entire human experience except for Scientology. Happy editing. Cool Hand Luke 07:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Coren sums up my views. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• As Coren said, everyone who was pushing a specific viewpoint was topic banned, even if they haven't edited in years. To unban you would be unfair to the community and others in the case. Nothing else to say here. Wizardman 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology (2) (June 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

• FT2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by FT2

This is a request for a minor clarification or amendment of remedy #2 (IP addresses belonging to the Church of Scientology), to avoid a point of contention that is sure to arise some time soon.

The ruling states, "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses."

Could the Committee clarify that this covers IP addresses reasonably believed to be owned or operated by the CoS, or that appear to be substantively used for that purpose or on their behalf, not just those where "ownership" is formally proven through an IP registrar or "operated by" is claimed (and disputed).

This guidance would be worth obtaining before any blocks start hitting the administrators' incident or arbitration enforcement noticeboards, and because it is an obvious block evasion/wikilawyering tactic (obtaining new IP addresses not visibly "owned or operated" by CoS, even "broadly interpreted", would be trivially easy).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of need

"Or controlled" is a statement of fact (an IP is or is not "controlled or operated by the Church"). As often stated in sock cases, we don't have the ability to look through the wires, and administrators will not have it with this organization. We would have instead, usage that looks like scientology co-ordinated usage, but no visible "ownership" and some evidence tending to show possible "operation by the Church" itself.

With sockpuppetry in general we have the principle, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." (Case link). As future blocks are predictable, and to avoid unnecessary issues, I ask the committee to give explicit confirmation that the same principle is intended to apply here. Ie that the following is a correct statement of the intent and interpretation of the remedy:-

• For the purposes of dispute resolution, administrators do not have to formally prove an IP is "owned or operated by". It is sufficient that it is reasonable to believe the IP is owned or operated by CoS or its proxies, or that it is substantively used for that purpose or on their behalf.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The wording was intended to give admin and checkusers wide latitude in blocking ip addresses that are under the direct control of the CofS. IMO, the wording, "or operated by", covers the situation that you describe. Any more detailed wording could introduce more confusion not less. With additional remedies, "Account limitation, and Editors instructed, I think we have all the bases covered. As always, admins and checkusers will look at each situation on a case by case basis before they make these blocks so we can discuss anything unusual then. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • IMO, the point of the particular remedy is to specifically modify the use of ip addresses owned and directly controlled by the CofS, so if you are referring to a more general coordinated editing of the topic by people acting on the direction of the CofS, then it would not apply. But as I pointed out, other remedies and our policies would apply to all editor of the Scientology topic. In every instance, an admin and/or checkusers will be looking at the particular details and making a decision. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• "or operated by" includes IPs controlled but not directly owned by COFS. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• The intent of the remedy is that if an IP is under the control of the CoS, then is should be blocked. The "or operated by" makes it clear that direct ownership is not necessary— as is often the case when IP blocks are concerned, administrator and checkuser interpretation and determination is expected. — Coren ^(talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.