Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Request to amend prior case: Scientology (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:

• Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• So many other people, but God willing we do not need to list them all for this simple an issue.

Statement by Phil Sandifer

Given the sudden press attention on the Scientology case, including a Slashdot link and a Register article, I would like to request that all pages related to the case be courtesy blanked so as not to have people show up in search engines over this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt the arbcom dragged a lot of people unrelated into the dispute into this case and sanctioned them, often in ways linked to real life identities. This was something I had considerable concern about at the time, and I still do. People who have not seriously edited Wikipedia in two years are named and sanctioned in the case, and the case is the subject of media attention. This goes to the heart of the "courtesy" aspect of courtesy blanking - there is no legitimate interest served in displaying the arbitration pages prominently in any way shape or form. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For my part, when I opted to edit Wikipedia under my real name several years ago, it was out of a sense that credentialed and published experts in subject areas ought edit Wikipedia openly - as an attempt to bring legitimacy to the project. At the time it was inconceivable that the arbcom would approach a case in the cavalier manner they did here. At this point, I regret greatly my decision to edit openly and under my real name, and feel like the project has greatly betrayed me as a long-time contributor. Yes, I assumed a certain measure of risk when I edited under my real name. But this goes well beyond what I had any reason to expect would happen. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the archive is still there. In practice, I take a several-stanced position on it. To my mind, sanctions that are intended for enforcement need to be publicly listed. I have long wished that the arbcom would stop issuing reprimands publicly, just because I do not think "shame" is an appropriate disciplinary mechanism. This case brokers new ground in this particular calculus because it adds the new wrinkle of enforceable sanctions against people who are functionally non-editors. This is something the arbcom cannot fix at this point, and is why I am appealing the case outright. But given the particularly high publicity of this one, I think a courtesy blank is in order. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FT2 - perhaps you will edit the advice to include "also the arbcom may decide to arbitrarily use their official powers to criticize you via a non sequitur that has nothing to do with any active case" to the cons of using your real name, then? I mean, that remains my primary issue here, and why I think even the final decision should be accessed via history instead of live - the arbcom explicitly issued sanction against users who *are not even active editors* under their real names. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MZMcBride

It seems a bit rude to deliberately interrupt links to content. Courtesy blanking usually has the effect of hiding the content to most users. "not to have people show up in search engines" ← As far as I'm aware, all Arbitration pages and subpages have been excluded from search engines for some time. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? I have absolutely no objection to removing the content from search engines, but deliberately obfuscating the content (esp. when we know people are trying to read it) seems to be the wrong path to take. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A few additional points I think should be considered, though I'm not particularly sure if this is an appropriate forum. In my opinion, at a minimum, all /Evidence subpages in all cases should be courtesy blanked following the conclusion of a case. The amount of garbage stored in them is unbelievable. This may or may not extend to /Workshop and /Proposed_decision subpages as well. (A broader discussion about this has been on my mental to-do list for some time.)

As to this specific case, and more generally to Final decisions, I think it's very important to consider the possibility of a mini Streisand effect by courtesy blanking any pages on our project. Right now, people can easily link to the pages on our site and our pages are kept out of search engines. If the pages are blanked, I think it increases the possibility of other sites either copying the entire contents or specific sections onto their own sites, where it increases exposure and puts the content into search engines. Just something to consider. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question by Rootology

Arb pages, as MZM said, are already excluded from all the ethical search engines that honor NOINDEX. What are the people referred to in "not to have people show up in search engines over this case"? If it's in regards to any editors that actively choose to edit under their own names... while it's unfortunate, any sanctions and the like picked up under their own names are their own responsibilities. If this happens, it could open a slippery slope leading back into WP:DR that may give "named" users inappropriate advantages in content editing, DR, the AC process, or any number of things. While I have no problem giving named people deference on things like {{indef}} tags on their user pages until we start NOINDEXing user space content, I dislike this on Arbitration related or DR-related content. If anyone is/was sanctioned/under sanction in some way, there is no reason to hide or minimize that. It's all public record for our processes. If we didn't NOINDEX this content, I'd have absolutely no objection to blanking it even myself. rootology/equality 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for Phil -- that's a good point, you just made. But I'm worried/wondering about this from the precedent standpoint, since no matter how much the AC says "we don't set precedent and we don't set policy", it's a fact that editors do interpret them that way and how it could trickle down to other situations in DR. Blanking itself is one thing, and I really don't have a problem with that in the general sense of the word--its just decent. But its the fact that it could lend obscurity to one's record, or cause something to be missed on later cases or situations as evidence. Have you ever had any other Arbcom findings go against you on your current user name (I haven't checked, you've been around for ages :))? rootology/equality 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As Phil didn't answer my open question of whether he has received Arbcom sanctions or findings vs. him before under User:Phil Sandifer, I wonder if this is--as he mentions--due to the press angle? If the finding is bad, and the decision is bad, I recommend the affected users appeal it normally. Hiding it, as Thatcher starts to say, due to "press" isn't a valid reason to hide anything. It will if anything just inflame things thanks to the usual problems that sort of thing causes. We're each of us responsible for our own actions here. If there is a problem with the AC decision, there is an easy way to fix that--appeal it in public. If the decision was bad, it can be overturned with enough community mandate. That's how things work. rootology/equality 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

I would strongly advise against blanking the case pages en masse. I think some selective redaction or hiding of evidence and decision sections that mention real people might be appropriate. But the full decision (listing the rationale for the decision and the specific principles and findings) needs to be generally visible. Thatcher 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Cenarium

I agree that the main case page should not be blanked, at any rate not entirely; that page is now highly visible and linked from several newspapers; we ought not to deny those readers the reading of the case. For the reasons mentioned above and also because it's so rare when they can see the arcanes of Wikipedia... If needs be, specific findings of facts or remedies mentioning real names could be courtesy-blanked, e.g. "This remedy has been blanked as a courtesy.". For other case pages, I have no major objection, but in the same time, they are much less visible. Cenarium (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Shutterbug

To me this looks like the attempt to cover up a bogus "judgment" that ended up discriminating a certain group of Wikipedians, as some media correctly pointed out already. I would not recommend it. Shutterbug (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by FT2

This is a case that for better or worse has a higher profile (arguably) than any other before, and is already linked widely. The pages have already been NOINDEXed. If blanked, it conveys the message that a coverup or rethink is implied, which we know it doesn't mean, but it will be described that way.

Like all accounts created since 2005, the parties in this case will have been aware of the issue and were either clearly told the point to consider on signing up (or if they signed up before 2005 they have been around long enough to see how it goes and address the issue if they desired).

The account creation dialog has clearly stated for 3.5 years that users should be cautious in editing under an identifiable or "real life" name, including a link to Wikipedia:Username policy#Choosing a username. This is precisely to warn users of this kind of situation:

December 2005 wording	"See the pros and cons of using your real name."	[1]
From May 2006	"Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name."	[2]
From June 2007	"Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; editors who use their real names have sometimes been subjected to harassment. See the pros and cons of using your real name."	[3]
From April 2008	"Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; editors who use their real names have sometimes been subjected to harassment. See the pros and cons of using your real name." and also: "Consider carefully if you wish to put personal information about yourself on Wikipedia (especially information that may enable someone to identify you). Generally there is no requirement to do this [...]"	[4]

The warning has consistently become more forceful over time. Part of the reason for this is that once a user has been around enough to reach Arbitration, their username has been signed on many edits, and many talk pages, and we cannot realistically do much to help them beyond preventing spidering of the content. Another reason is that removing information on disruptive users is often disruptive or drama inspiring itself, and can lead to intense spiralling of the case (which would not have happened if the user was not editing under a "real" name). There is a limit to our ability to protect higher profile disruptive users, and it is around the point where that would itself risk being a disruptive or harmful action.

So we warn users not to do so, we explain the issues, we NOINDEX to prevent spidering, and we have for years encouraged users to choose a pseudonym to edit under if they have doubts. And in this case, I don't think we can blank the main case page. Our Workshop and Evidence pages have been blanked. But not the main case page and probably not the proposed decision that underpins it, or at least, not at this time.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by JoshuaZ

Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what courtesy blanking already NOINDEXed easily accessible material will accomplish. The people looking for this in detail will be able to go to the history already. This does nothing other than damage the appearance of transparency and make things slightly less transparent for those who aren't that familiar with Wikipedia. Given the large amount of coverage this case has achieved it is if anything more important that we achieve both transparency and an appearance of transparency in this case. This is true both for PR reasons and from a simple perspective of transparency being a good thing.

Has any specific user expressed concern about any of the pages in question discussing that user personally? If not, it seems very hard to justify this. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Please note that this is currently being discussed. Tiptoety ^talk 03:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have no objection to courtesy-blanking all the case pages, with the exception of those portions of the final decision that involve principles and generic findings and remedies (as opposed to those naming particular individuals). In the meantime, however, note that all arbitration pages are designated "NOINDEX", meaning that they should hopefully not be showing up in search engine results in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• At this time, case pages other than the primary case page (and, by extension, the final decision itself) has been blanked as a courtesy to all involved. I could be persuaded to support blanking the initial statements as well, leaving only the decision directly viewable if my colleagues agree. However, the decision itself should not be blanked; both as a practical matter (since reference to it for enforcement is required), as a matter of process, and because of the very large number of external links now pointing to it given the current media attention. — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• In principle, I'm in favour of courtesy blanking everything (for all arbitration cases, not just this one) except the final decision (and indeed excising preliminary statements for that). However, some of my colleagues have opposing opinions based, reasonably enough, on transparency.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• In agreement with other arbitrators. As I've stated many times, I have no objection to courtesy-blanking the case pages on all cases, with the exception of the final decision. IMO, this approach should be used for all cases by blanking cases 2 weeks after the case closes. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Final decision should not be blanked as per my colleagues preceding, I am in two minds about other pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd be in favor of blanking the whole thing, and certainly everything besides final decision. There were a lot of real names tossed about, and not just of Wikipedians either. I wish this had been implemented the moment it closed. I think this case is unusual, however, I am not in favor of blanking across-the-board. Cool Hand Luke 07:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Fine with courtesy blanking in line with Newyorkbrad's proposal, but the final decision really does need to be accessible. Risker (talk) 08:00, 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 to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine (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:

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

Statement by Durova

On 23 March 2008 Benjiboi was topic banned from the Matt Sanchez per discretionary sanctions at arbitration enforcement.[5] Overall, Benjiboi's history as a Wikipedian editor has been a good one. It can feel like a scarlet letter to a longstanding editor to be under arbitration restriction. He's been under the ban from the article and its talk page for over a year, has not evaded the restriction, and he'll probably be more constructive if he decides to edit there again. If problems resume the restriction can be reinstated, of course.

Posting as the editor who started the AE thread that resulted in his restriction; let's give this a second chance. Durova^Charge! 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Committee is welcome to structure Benjiboi's return as it sees fit and Benjiboi is welcome to seek mentorship, supervision, or some other arrangement. Durova^Charge! 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To Risker: a banner has been at the top of Benjiboi's user talk page for about the last year:

I have been page banned, seen here, unjustly and without due process - no warning, no dialog whatsoever - by an admin who has a history of such conduct. Efforts to clear my reputation (not all from me) are here, here, here and here. Hopefully this breach in practice will ultimately lead to a clearer and more just policy in how bans are to be enacted.

In specific reply to the offer to open the current motion he answered:

Of course. I'd would also like to see Wikipedia:Banning policy cleared up a bit but feel being banned at the same time would be seen as conflicted in some way so have stayed clear to avoid the appearance of somehow gaming policies. -- Banjeboi 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[6]

He previously appealed his topic ban to the Committee[7][8] and to Jimbo.[9] From the start I felt that his sanction was a pretty close call. It wasn't what I was originally seeking upon opening the AE thread, and have been on the fence about whether to support its continuance or initiate a request for its end. He probably felt he'd run out of appeals, but an unsolicited motion of support from the editor whose complaint had triggered a sanction sometimes tips the balance. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Benjiboi

Note: apologies in advance for the length here, this has been a bit painful so I'm attempting to proactively address concerns.

As indicated by Durova I had rather given up hope on this and since appeals were met with "what, again" feedback I felt it was best just to leave it until someone else felt it was time to revisit the issue. My hope is to clear this off my name, even if availble to admins to still see, as it has been the most stress I have faced here and seems only to serve to shame me in some way when I feel the ban could have been prevented in the first place.

I appealed immediately and my inexperience in wikilawyering showed. Although there are exceptions I think Wikipedia:Banning policy should be similar structured to blocking policies in at least that dialog preceeds banning so an editor can look to adjusting thier approach and striking unhelpful comments, etc. Also giving editors, especially experienced editors, indefinite bans with little hope of removing them if the admin isn't open to the idea also seems out of step with the spirit of AGF. I was instead bundled with another editor who I often disagreed with who was certainly causing disruption there. As Durova states this was perhaps borderline, but IMHO, no ban was needed.

I feel this is a bit of an exceptional case because the subject themselves had been the source of many problems and my ban was tied to their direct statements to get me and other "homosexual" (and much more colourful termed) editors away from it as is evident in the talkpage archives, the main case and, apparently, in OTRS communications. The article and talkpage were battlegrounds prior to my involvement and was tied to the very poor conduct of the subject of the article who seemed to feel volume outweighed policies. They may have been baited and trolled but even after that had been largely addressed the attacks from them continued. Prior to my ban I had worked to clean-up the talkpage and the article and much of my efforts are what you see there presently. Especially keeping the talkpage clear to discuss issues and resolve concerns.

I felt the ban was unneeded and dialog would have negated the need for a ban, at least in my case. I do, and did, apologize for my part in how I conducted a sourcing dispute (YouTube videos that should have been properly attributed to the original source), poor use of blogs, and sarcastic comments, a sign of frustration but unhelpful none the less.

I still feel BLP issues need to be discussed on talkpages and have been in many similar discussions; this is not activism (of which I was accused) but follwing reliable sourcing and BLP policies. Given an instant replay I would have taken Durova's advice and looked to clarification at RSN board on how to handle the subject's own statements regarding their sexuality and sexual practices. I would have also worked to clean-up the sourcing issues which didn't need deleting but certainly weren't helped by simply reverting either.

Many editors felt discussion was being suppressed because the subject of the article was complaining vigorously about ... well, everything. After the subject's community and arbcom bans they apparently barraged OTRS with complaints including specifically naming me as I was among the few remaining editors on the talkpage who openly disagreed with some, but not all, of their many wishes and concerns. Frankly, it seemed like the decision to uphold the ban against me was along the lines of "we'll give the subject this one but that's it".

I've worked on many articles including BLPs since this unfortunate period and certainly would not take the same approach. I'm unconvinced that anyone needs to monitor my involvement there as I intend to avoid the subject and the article is well watched and also remains under arb enforcement. I also have real life concerns for my safety so am unlikely to be involved there at all. If ameniable I would also like to have my involvement on the arb case oversighted or otherwise masked so I am of less interest to anyone there. I do however do wikignoming bits on a volume of articles as well as trouble-shooting on LGBT-related articles so also don't want to be pilorized for even touching the article. -- Banjeboi 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Risker: Thank you for your kind words. To address "sexual orientation is rarely the reason for notability of BLP subjects, and should be accorded only due weight" I tend to fully agree with you. In the case of this BLP subject there was heavy dispute that their notability was directly tied to their sexuality and sexual activities. My efforts were to resolve that to end the circular arguing, that there was acrimony and socking, personal attacks etc only made the situation more of a battleground. In hindsight I'm glad I pushed for the discussion to take place however I would have worked more on the sourcing angles in light of due weight issues. -- Banjeboi 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cool Hand Luke: There are two main reasons for lifting this besides the personal angst to myself, by most accounts a productive Wikipedian. It could have been avoided in the first place with civil dialog and it was made permanent by an admin who apparently prides themself on using a hammer and perhaps sees editors in more stark contrasting terms when people can and do change. I'm glad I was involved there as I learned a lot up to and including my page-ban and my unfortaunate introduction to Arbcom. This has also enforced my belief that we get better editors by civilly discussing issues and helping them do the same. This has coloured my exprerience to be much more compassionate when editors fly off the track for whatever reasons. Our goal should be to help them amend and improve not shame and punish. If I'm asked to help there again I'm more likely to offer drafts and let others decide what is worth using, I have some real life issues about my association with this. -- Banjeboi 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other username

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Durova: I have no problems with lifting the sanction if you'll take responsibility for keeping an eye on the article and notifying us if Benjiboi starts violating BLP again. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear from Benjiboi on what he considers to be the best situation here. If he does not view this as an issue, then I am not inclined to make any changes in the current situation. If he *does* consider it an issue, then I am unclear why he did not post this request for amendment himself. Risker (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Durova: The links you provided demonstrate that Benjiboi himself last initiated a request that the ban be lifted in April 2008, just about a month after it was imposed. The other two requests (to the Committee and to Jimbo) were initiated by another editor, in September 2008. The Committee's door is open for him to make the request himself, or to propose alternative terms or probationary status; however, I fully expect an editor who wants an amendment to an action taken on behalf of this Committee to clearly articulate for him or herself exactly why that amendment should be made. Support (and concerns) from other editors is of course welcome. I understand that you have reasons not to wish to monitor the situation personally; however, with no alternative proposed, I cannot see this going forward. Risker (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Benjiboi: Thank you for coming to the table. I have, incidental to any matters before the Committee, had the opportunity to observe your work in the project, and more particularly your development as an editor, and your increased understanding of the importance of nuance in editing BLPs in particular; however, I'd urge you to reflect on the fact that sexual orientation is rarely the reason for notability of BLP subjects, and should be accorded only due weight, similar to the passing mention of significant others in the articles of "straight" subjects. Given your changes in practice over the ensuing year-plus, and your intention to avoid this particular article, I am willing to lift the topic ban. I do, however, expect you to take advantage of the many resources available to you when proposing to include non-standard reference sources. Risker (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion initiated. Risker (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Recuse due to being a clerk on the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Based on Benjiboi's comments and other non-controversial work on BLPs, I agree that we can lift the ban by motion. Benjiboi, I take you at your word that you are planning to stay away from the article. "I'm unconvinced that anyone needs to monitor my involvement there as I intend to avoid the subject and the article is well watched and also remains under arb enforcement." As you have indicated, I don't think that it will be wise for you to resume editing the article. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Additionally, the some case pages can be courtesy blanked or redacted. Benjiboi, contact ArbCom by email at <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org> to discuss what you have in mind in the way of redacting. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Motions

For this request, there are 14 active Arbitrators, minus 1 who is recused, so 7 is a majority.

Topic ban rescinded

The topic ban placed on Benjiboi (talk · contribs) in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine is rescinded.

Support

1. I do not see a need for specific mentoring on this issue, and Benjiboi has stated he intends to stay away from the relevant article. Risker (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support but per Kirill, if Durova keeps an eye on this situation. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5. --Vassyana (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
6. If he's staying away, why is this even necessary? I'm honestly skeptical about the scarlet letter theory of sanctions, but I'm not opposed to rescinding it. Cool Hand Luke 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Kirill and CHL.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Okay so long as an eye is kept on it. Wizardman 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
9. With the reminder that using this as an opportunity to return to problematic editing will be viewed very dimly indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. As above. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Motion enacted Tiptoety ^talk 18:58, 11 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 to amend prior case: Ireland article names (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:

• MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ? Named parties?

Statement by MickMacNee

• A dispute is ongoing about the proper venue for conducting discussion of the issues raised in this case. In particular, admin SarekOfVulcan blocked Domer48 for actions on the Republic of Ireland article talk page and the article itself. Discussion is on their talk pages, and at ANI here (stale). Request the committee ammends the case to explicitly confine discussion of the issues pertinent to the case, to the nominated discussion venue, namely WP:IECOLL. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Second this request. Part of Domer's argument for not being blocked was that ArbCom never said the individual article talkpages couldn't be used to discuss changing the name/focus of the individual articles. If the ArbCom could make it clear whether or not their intent was to move all discussion concerning page names/focuses into the location specified pursuant to remedy 2, that would be most useful. I think that confining discussion is the right thing to do, because we don't need half the articles working one way and half another.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Domer48: Changing an article whose history clearly indicates that it is about the Irish State so that it is instead about the term "Republic of Ireland" as it refers to that state is a move by almost anyone's definition here. It's most certainly not a "discussion about content". Does the ArbCom need to explicitly spell out something this obvious?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BigDunc

This shows that Sarek was telling factual inaccuracies, this is what Domer had asked to be shown and Sarek claimed was already in place when he blocked Domer. Sarek also claimed on ANI that it was in place it appears he/she was mistaken. BigDunc^Talk 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also for the record I oppose this what we need is a kick start to get it up and running again. And maybe the Domer debacle has done that. BigDunc^Talk 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the poll started by Deacon we deal with Facts not force of numbers. BigDunc^Talk 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rockpocket

I also urge ArbCom to be be explicit in their instructions for how this dispute should (and should not) be resolved. Sadly there are efforts to subvert the current process by forum shopping, with the apparent aim if creating a false consensus. That has been supported by claims that ArbCom did not explicitly put in place a structure for resolution and that ArbCom did not explicitly prohibit discussions from individual article talk pages. These claims are technically accurate, but clearly not in the spirit of the remedies ArbCom did pass. This could be resolved with a simple amendment stating the discussion should take place at a single centralized forum. Rockpocket 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

This dispute is still running because the method ArbCom set up for resolving this was ineffective and collapsed, and contrary to the emerging norm of ArbCom practice in such areas, the hot-heads of the dispute didn't get topic banned and are continuing to ensure everything's as tendentious, partisan and heated as ever. No consensus will be built here by discussion. I pointed this out before, now I have been proven correct. What has to be done now is the process I recommended two months ago, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Moderator_action_..._next_step and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion, a process that got the support of the most respectable editors participating. A decisive result would be produced, and though its results wouldn't please everyone, it would have a legitimacy lacking now. I propose the poll be moderated by Coren, who I propose because I think he is the arbitrator best cut out to deal with it and the likely nonsense. An arb is a preferential appointment because his authority is most likely to be respected, so I think one should be the nominal head even if he has deputies doing most of the actual work. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal page

I've opened a proposal page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Community poll. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Personally, I'd like to see all the Arbitrators get together & decide via simple majority vote on a ruling for these articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HighKing

The current process does not take into consideration the lack of incentive by some editors to allow a process (that will result in changes they don't agree with) to proceed. So they simply delay the process, slow it down, stick heels in, and are happy with a stagnant process. And you'd be surprised at how few editors it takes to achieve this. The current process and method requires a number of changes. Another point is that in general, weight of numbers also appears to sway arguments much more than the quality of the arguments and discussions, so having a senior arbitrator (or more than one) involved in order to actually make decisions and give directions is required. This should be (mutually, whatever) agreed up front, that the decisions of the arbitrator (committee, whatever) is respected, done in good faith, neutral, and most importantly accepted and final. I would add that we have also seen a recent flare-up in a very similar and possibly closely related "British Isles" edit-warring, disagreements and discussions. While a decision here does not effect a decision on "British Isles" as they can be decided seperately, I believe the community only has bandwidth to manage one dispute of this nature. I would suggest that ArbCom rules that all "British Isles" related article changes and renaming is banned until after the current process is decided, but with an undertaking that the issues outlined within the WP:BISLES taskforce will be worked on immediately after this one (I'm sure the lessons learned here will be valuable and speed up the WP:BISLES process). --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mooretwin

It becomes clearer with every dispute, every edit war, that the only solution to this is a comprehensive one, covering not merely the names of the articles, but a protocol for names within the texts of other articles, and for descriptive-names of articles (e.g. Politics of the Republic of Ireland, or Culture of Ireland).

There's been a compromise proposal on the table since December of last year, which was sadly ignored by Arbcom who put in place the recently-closed futile "statementing" process instead. It needs a bit more work to pin down detail (which is essential in order to avoid edit wars on the hundreds of articles across Wikipedia which refer to Ireland or the Republic), but the essence is there. Mooretwin (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah777

Utterly and totally oppose this. I oppose any attempt to stifle discussion of what is, put simply, the imposition of British POV in opposition to WP:NPOV . "Forum shopping"? There are so many articles where the network of British-Wiki political imposition impinges on Ireland-related articles that this proposal is an abusers charter. We will have biased (or uninformed) Admins blocking and banning right, left and centre. The SarekOfVulcan block has surely illustrated the dangers? The refusal of the Wiki Admin Community to recognise (or maybe to acknowledge) that what we have here is the imposition of Nationalist POV by simple numerical supremacy is the elephant in the room. What is proposed is yet another stratagem to silence Irish editors who refuse to accept the imposition of British pov under the guise of "consensus". Look no further than the calls (above) for votes to enforce majotitarianism rather than WP:NPOV. Which is a very different concept. As Mooretwin (who is generally on the opposite political pole to me on British/Irish issues) points out, there are compromises acceptable to reasonable editors on both sides, but Wiki appears unable to contemplate any change in the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded

Oppose it is however essential that someone takes a grip on the process, finding a solution to this has been stalled by a mediation process that never started and mediators who resigned. --Snowded ^TALK 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ClemMcGann

I concur with Sarah's statement, above. There are editors who wish to impose, what is, an imperialist agenda. Yet they seem oblivious to their errors. Their numbers give them confidence. This is a matter of regret. To compound the injury, it now appears that freely discussing these mistakes is some form of a thought-crime which can have an editor silenced. I tend not to get involved in these arguments. They are so wasteful. But, I feel that I must protest the actions of Sarek. With regret ClemMcGann (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Proposal Page.

I see that the Deacon has since opened a poll. Why? We know that there are more British editors. It would seem that mob rule will prevail. ClemMcGann (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bastun

Concur with Deacon of Pndapetzim above. The process outlined in the original Arbcom Remedy 1 and Remedy 2 has, unfortunately, failed to get anywhere. Some progress was made, but we've been stymied by a lack of leadership from the moderators and, frankly, an unwillingness to give an inch from both sides, to the extent that factual statements (with a link to the relevant legislation), such as "The description of the state is defined in law as "the Republic of Ireland", by Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which says in full: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."" are opposed by some users.

I believe it is now up to Arbcom to take control and either impose a solution, or at least for a subcommittee of Arbcom members to take over the reigns at WP:IECOLL.

I would also like to point out that Sarah777 does not speak for or represent all (or many) Irish editors or Irish people generally, and some of her comments above seem to fly in the face of an already-imposed Arbcom remedy. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by (currently uninvolved editor) Scolaire

First, an observation: looking at this discussion for the first time in six months I am astonished to discover that it has not moved on as much as an inch in that time! The identical arguments are still being recycled on a daily, sometimes an hourly, basis. How many cycles is that since August last year? Each side continues to believe that it has the overwhelming community support as against a handful of wreckers on the other side. What I see, as a (now) outsider, is overwhelming community boredom with the whole issue, and a handful of emotional editors intent on continuing their trench warfare, almost for its own sake. I wouldn't mind so much if it was even a good old-fashioned British/Irish, North/South or Nationalist/Unionist ding-dong, but it's not - it's a totally home-made war between two rainbow coalitions that doesn't reflect any equivalent debate in the real world!

Second, a question: as I understand it, the proposal here is for discussion of the issues to be confined to IECOLL, but Deacon of Pndapetzim has responded by opening a new community poll page; what has the one to do with the other? Does the creation of yet another new page not encourage decentralisation rather than the reverse?

Based on the above, and on the assumption that the question on the table is still about confining the cyclical homemade civil war to the designated area, I support the request. Scolaire (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by (original Arbitration requester) Evertype

Support if and only if ArbCom takes this seriously and actually does something. And that includes having a poll that actually gives all of the options, and allowing people to rank their preferences. This is not unlike the Proportional Representation we enjoy. There may be more than one option that I can support, and of several options I may prefer one configuration over another. I have seen arbitrator Masem propose a poll with only two options. I oppose this. Just above we see Deacon offering a new page; I requested that he add another option there but my proposal was dismissed because it "makes no sense" by which Deacon means he didn't agree with it. And we see just above Mooretwin pointing to his "compromise proposal"; note that I opposed that except as part of a more comprehensive solution. Such a solution cannot be devised by a simple majority binary poll. We need to recognize that a complex topic needs a complex poll. Like Scoláire above I am disillusioned by this process. So while appreciative of Sarah777's and Snowded's comments above, I think support is the appropriate suggestion. BY THE WAY I would like the Arbitrators to specifically address my request for a complex poll which offers a range of solutions and permits ranked preferences. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by (naming project moderator) Masem

I would have to agree that attempts to purposely move the discussion from the naming project talk pages or its subpages to any other pages, is trying to undermine the process. It's one thing for a new editor to come in asking about the name (at which point a causal pointed to the naming project can be provided), but to try to change the naming issues at the article level and bypass the project does seem to be against the spirit of which the original ArbCom goals of the project were set up for. There are a lot of potentially disruptive personalities involved here, and that attempts to subvert the process by any means should not be considered kindly by ArbCom, the moderators, or the project. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Domer48

Oppose: The suggestion by MickMacNee who opened this discussion was to amend the case to explicitly confine discussion of the “issues pertinent to the case,” to the nominated discussion venue, namely WP:IECOLL. However the motion as it is presented is to confine this to “Discussions relating to the “naming of Ireland” articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.” This creates ambiguity, because Editors and Admin’s could interpret this motion to mean all subjects including article “content” being excluded from the Article talk page. This is evidenced already by one Admin removing all talk page discussions [10], [11], and suggesting they were already acting under an ArbCom directive, [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], a view endorsed by another Admin despite the fact that the discussions related to Article content and not the naming issue. Therefore, should this motion be passed all discussions including content issue as mentioned above would be prohibited. I don't think this is ArbCom's intension or wish. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

It doesn't appear as though the named parties have been notified; doing that now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Guliolopez was notified on ga.wiki as well. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse - I did too much arbitration enforcement in this area last fall. Risker (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. As this has been spawned from these edits by Domer48, my view is that those edits were contrary to the spirit of remedy 3 "No moves pending discussion". If there are further occurrences of disruption of the status quo prior to a binding resolution, the issue should be brought to the committee, in order that a topic ban to be considered.
  Also, a third moderator has not been appointed (see Wikipedia:AC/N#Ireland_collaboration). Anyone interested should contact the committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Commment. It appears that project moderators were not notified of this request. I have left courtesy notices on their talk pages. I will wait on voting on the topic ban motion, or proposing any alternative motions, until they have a chance to comment. --Vassyana (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Motions

For this request, there are 14 active arbitrators, minus 1 who is recused, so 7 is a majority.

Forum for discussion

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Support

1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Ok. Least problematic way forward compared to other options. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
6. --Vassyana (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Wizardman 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
9. — Coren ^(talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recused

1. Risker (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion enacted - Tiptoety ^talk 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Moderation

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

Support

1. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
7. — Coren ^(talk) 18:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

1. I need to think about whether the ban should be done by the moderator, or if the moderator should ask for a second opinion from someone else in order to keep themselves from getting too mixed up in the side issue of addressing user conduct problems. I'm leaning toward, allowing them to ban people but not having them do the enforcement. Instead any warning and blocks to enforce it would be best done by another admin. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

   I would prefer that someone engaged in the process decides who is disrupting the effort, and remove them early before there is any major user conduct issues. Blocks would be better done by uninvolved admins, but that is beyond the scope of this motion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

   We need to consider the way that the ban will be enforced. At AE? By the mods? Since some the users involved in the issue have a long track record of reporting each other in various venues and then loads of users pile in to comment, I think we need to anticipate that that people will be reported as needing a ban and we need to have a plan in place to do it and enforce it. Otherwise, the ban discussion and enforcement will be a distraction rather than the hoped for remedy. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Recused

1. Risker (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion enacted - Tiptoety ^talk 21:05, 12 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 to amend prior case: Tango (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.

---

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango.

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

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

Statement by Tango

I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Since the reorganisation of RFAR there doesn't seem to be an explicit place for appeals. It has been just over a year since I was desysopped and, now that everything has calmed down (and I've finished my exams!), I would like the ArbCom to take another look at the case. My main grounds for appeal is this principle. The rule doesn't exist (hence the need for a link to MeatBall, there being no Wikipedia page to link to). It's not an "unwritten rule" that everyone knows, as evidenced by a arbitrator voting against it on the grounds that it doesn't exist. Therefore the principle is fundamentally flawed and any decision based on it is likewise flawed. For that reason, I request that the result of the case be overturned and, if anyone wants to, a new case be started so the matter can be considered de novo (I am happy for the desysopping to remain in force pending the result of a new case, if one is started). Thank you. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To MBisanz: I wouldn't generally consider the person that wrote it to be "involved or directly affected" (at least any more that anyone else on the committee at the time), but I'll go an notify him now, since you've asked. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have no objection to Newyorkbrad's participation in this appeal. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To Kirill: "An administrator is expected..." is a statement of policy, either written or unwritten, there is no other reasonable interpretation of that wording. An unwritten rule can only exist if everyone knows about it, that's the nature of unwritten rules, so one arb not knowing about it is enough to invalidate it. If I just wanted the mop back I would go to RFA, I'm here to clear my name. --Tango (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By the logic you are using, it is forbidden for any admin to take more than one piece of action over a given issue since, after the first, they are involved. My only involvement was that I gave the warning which MONGO made clear he intended to ignore. The principle in the case is far broader than existing policy - it says that it is never acceptable to block when you were the target, even when you being the target is incidental to the case and does not constitute an involvement. --Tango (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To Kirill: One persons lack of knowledge of an unwritten rule does invalidate it. The whole concept of unwritten rules makes no sense if they aren't universally known. --Tango (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To Casliber: No, I do not have any remorse. I stand by my actions for the reasons stated at the time. If an administrator is not allowed to do the right thing for the project, I have no interest in being one. --Tango (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Username

Clerk notes

• The specific provision in question was drafted by ex-arb User:UninvitedCompany, Tango could you notify him of this request per the standard procedures? Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When this case was originally brought, I recused myself because the underlying dispute involved a block based on user conduct relating to articles concerning the events of September 11, 2001, a topic area on which I do not arbitrate for reasons previously discussed on this page. At the time, some editors privately advised me that they my recusal in this case was unnecessarily conservative. In any event, I consider that the issues raised by the present request/appeal are quite remote from the underlying September 11 disputes. Accordingly, unless an objection is raised within 48 hours, I will participate in the consideration and disposition of this appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Seeing no objection, I'll comment on the merits of the appeal below (after the other comments already here, since I've read and considered them). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• There is no requirement that all principles in an arbitration decision be found in project policy, written or otherwise (compare, for example, this); they are simply statements of principle that the Committee considers to be valid. As such, asserting that the text of the principle is not found in policy is not grounds for an appeal even if true. (Nor, for that matter, does the opinion of a single arbitrator that a rule does not exist outweight the opinions of nine others who assert that it does.) If you wish to ask for your adminship to be restored (on the basis of good behavior in the interim, for example), I'm happy to entertain that appeal; but I see no reason why the original decision could in any way be considered invalid. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Tango: well, I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken if you believe that one individual's ignorance of a rule somehow invalidates it. (If you really want to argue policy, incidentally, then consider that blocking for attacks against oneself is implicitly prohibited by the policy that an administrator may not use their tools "to [their] advantage... or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist" (WP:ADMIN); that linking the title of a finding to an external document does not in any way invalidate the text of the finding itself; and that the section titles used in arbitration decisions are, in any case, present for convenience only, with only the text of each adopted provision constituting a substantive statement from the Committee). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Disclosure: I provided evidence in this case as a non-involved party. I had originally commented here, but on consideration believe it would be better for me to recuse. Risker (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• The case still would appear coherent and rational in the absence of the principle. Regardless, it seems basic to assert that when the admin is a directly involved party that they shouldn't be the one pushing the block button. If a rule is needed to spell out the principle: Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse of administrative tools takes care to try and broadly communicate that the tools should not be used when an administrator is biased or involved in a situation or likely to appear as such. --Vassyana (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• The principle in question is nothing more than an application, to a particular situation, of the general principle that an administrator should not use their tools in situations in which they are involved. Note also that the MONGO block was only one of several poor blocks that were considered in the case. --bainer (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with my colleagues that this is merely an example-specific articulation of longstanding policy that admins may not use the tools when they are involved.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Interpretation of policy and of its applicability to specific situations is the Committee's raison d'être; the case principles are the fundamental reasoning followed by the arbitrators during deliberation, and there is rarely a 1:1 correspondence with policies. Finding guidance outside of Wikipedia for concepts which are applicable is not incompatible with this. — Coren ^(talk) 13:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agreeing with the comments of the other arbitrators. The basis for a return of tools needs to be because of the desire to obtain the tools again after a history of good work on Wikipedia and the reassurance that you have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy about the use of admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• I understand Tango's concern about the principle from his case that he cites, and think it may have a bit more merit than some of my colleagues have suggested. As I have mentioned in another pending case, there is tension between the cited principle in RfAr/Tango, which states that an administrator should not block a user for personal attacks on the administrator himself or herself, and the principle set forth in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Combatting harassment, which provides that "[a]ny user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." I reconcile these principles through the understanding that an administrator may block a user who has subjected the administrator to indisputable bad-faith harassment, but not one who has simply made uncivil remarks that may have gone a bit too far. This is an example of the general rule that "administrators may not use their administrator status or tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved", and the question on which we have had some internal disagreement as to whether this principle should be expressed with any nuances or exceptions. Having said all of that, though, I agree with my colleagues that the cited principle played only a small role in the decision that was reached; this is not a situation in which pulling out a single thread, even if a majority were inclined to do so, would unravel the entire skein of the decision. Therefore, I agree that if Tango wishes to regain adminship, he should proceed as outlined in the decision, such as by submitting a request to the committee giving us a basis for concluding that the issues that led to the termination of his prior adminship will not recur. I note that there has been a substantial change in the committee's membership since his case was decided, so any such appeal would be decided by largely fresh sets of eyes. Alternatively, if he prefers, Tango can submit a new RfA at any time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am concerned that you (Tango) do not voice anything in the above request that indicates any remorse or desire to conduct yourself in a different way. This then does not give me any faith that you will not act the same way if confronted with the same or similar circumstances if they should arise in the future. On brief review, I don't think my opinion is going to differ markedly from the judgement made at the time. Thus, you can either turn to RfA or submit a request as Brad outlines above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse due to being a clerk on the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with what my fellow arbs have said above, particularly Casliber. Wizardman 03:37, 8 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 (3) (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:

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

Statement by Tilman

I have edited almost no articles on scientology for over a year (I all but stopped after August 2007), but have still been topic-banned. This is like a scarlet letter which is while I'd like to have the ban lifted, even if I am not currently editing on this. My only "crime" was that I edited on Barbara Schwarz while at the same time being in a dispute with her on the usenet, in 2006, so this is three years old. I have never been blocked because of this.

I can't access my actual edits on Barbara Schwarz, so I can't defend myself there (especially the accusation that I was told of a CoI and kept editing), but I know that I take great care to use a "neutral" language when on wikipedia. Although a scientology critic, I have always been careful to respect WP:NPOV when editing, i.e. to avoid using inflammatory language. This is why I have been blocked only once in 2006 for two hours because of a 3RR mistake.

Amusingly, because the topic ban also applies to the discussion pages of scientology related articles, I am also prohibited on talking about Tilman Hausherr or Xenu's Link Sleuth, despite being an obvious expert on these. (I am aware that editing on the articles is of course always a no-no)

According to this article [17] citing one "Dan Rosenthal", there is only one of the banned critics who hasn't been reinstated, so this is me... --Tilman (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Touretzky

Despite what Dan Rosenthal said in the LA Times article Tilman cites, I've seen no evidence that any banned users have been reinstated. Both Antaeus Feldspar and I have appealed our bans, as Tilman is doing now. No progress to report yet. -- Touretzky (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester

The statement in question was made by the LA Times, not me. I did not state to them anything of the sort. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Also as far as I'm aware, only 2 people were banned, one of which was already banned: John254, and Justallofthem. So I'm not entirely sure what this complaint is about. Topic-banning is not the same thing as a site-ban. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear from the above, I am Dan. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So, have you asked them to print a correction which will tell the readers what you really told them (assuming that you did communicate with them at all)? --Tilman (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Antaeus Feldspar

"Topic-banning is not the same thing as a site-ban." They only differ in scope. Both of them send the blatant message: "This user is so wholly destructive and intractable that only brute force will curb their disruption." This claim becomes hard to support if we look at, for instance, Special:Contributions/Touretzky: it is hard to see how an editor who had not made any edits at all for over thirteen months prior to the start of the case represented such a threat of disruption that it justified such a drastic and stigmatizing response. This was not an isolated fluke; Touretzky is not the only such editor whose record shows over a year of inactivity, whether on the topic of Scientology or on all topics, before being abruptly labeled an imminent threat to Wikipedia whose purported disruption could only be neutralized with brute-force action. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

Tilman, I notice you haven't done much editing in the past year. A word of advice. Take some articles in a topic other than Scientology to Good Article or better, Featured Article status during the next six months or so. That will show that you're intentions here are to build an encyclopedia. Then, nicely and politely, request that the topic ban be lifted. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not a writer, especially not in the english language, so I'm not good/fast enough in writing long texts. My main edit activity here were always small, sourced improvements. The constructive and cooperative culture that was fun in the beginning stopped a few years ago, which is why working for wikipedia is no longer something I'd spend hours on. If I'd really be so hot on editing the scientology topics, I'd used this solution [18][19] long ago instead of arguing :-) --Tilman (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• To clarify the Arb's statements below (since other similar requests have been archived), all editors who have ever heavily pushed a POV in a disruptive manner were topic banned, regardless of activity. If you are not active in the area, this should not affect you, and is a moot point. Other similar requests have been declined. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Per observations made by me and my colleagues in the other similar current requests.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per Roger. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:43, 9 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: Prem Rawat 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.

---

• Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jayen466 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [20]
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [21]
• Pergamino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [22]

• Related AE thread (permalink)
• Related AN/I thread (permalink)

Statement by Will Beback

WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2 closed in April. One of the remedies reads:

Revert limitations

3.1) The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to an editing restriction for one year. No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period, except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations. Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period.

There is a dispute over the exact meaning of this remedy, especially the last sentence. User:Sandstein contends that I violated it and blocked me for it, while I believe that he is misinterpreting the remedy and the relevant edits. In response to a complaint at WP:AE#Teachings of Prem Rawat by Jayen466, Sandstein blocked both myself and Pergamino.

• My first edit: [23] This edit added a section of material.
• A series of edits by Pergamino: [24][25][26][27] These edits altered the text I'd posted, and moved it, but did not revert my addition of the basic text.
• My second edit: [28] This edit undid Pergamino's edits (on account of his failure to discuss them).

So I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit, and hence there was no violation of the remedy. If the intent of the committee is to prohibit repeating the same edit within a one week period, which is what some folks seem to think it says, then it should be made explicit because it does not seem to say that now. If the block did not follow the existing wording of the remedy then I request an acknowledgment that there was an error.   Will Beback  talk  20:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to LessHeard vanU

There are two clauses to the remedy. The first prohibits making more than one revert in a week. LessHeard vanU seems to be proposing that it says no reverts are permitted. However the enforcement actually concerned the more complicated second clause, which says, I believe, that if an edit is reverted it may not be restored for a week. I contend that my original edit was only altered, not reverted, and that this situation is not covered by the language of the remedy.   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to AGK

It wrong to say that I reverted instead of discussing. On the contrary, I reverted the changes because the editor who made them didn't explain them or even leave accurate edit summaries. The talk page shows ample discussion on my part. Commenting without ascertainng the facts first isn't helpful.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate AGK's clarification and accept his apology.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies

Roger writes: "It seems clear enough to me that reverting any change is prohibited."

The remedy says: "No user may revert any given changes to a subject article more than once within a seven day period,..."

So regarding the first clause, there seems to be a disagreement over whether it's "1RR" or "0RR". However this clarification principally concerns the second clause, which is more difficult to interpret. It seems to say that you may not restore your edit if someone reverts it. It does not seem to say that if someone changes your work you may not revert it. That's the crux of this clarification request.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad

I have edited numerous contentious issues on Wikipedia for nearly five years, and have made over 90,000 edits, without ever having been blocked before. On the same day that I was blocked an article I wrote related to this topic was promoted to featured status. I sincerely believed at the time I made the edit in question that I was following the applicable remedy. If this remedy is so obtusely worded that an experienced editor such as myself breaks it without realizing it then I suggest that it is not clearly written, and that it will discourage any further participation in this topic by outsiders, which in turn may lead to the topic once again becoming dominated by single purpose editors. That would be counterproductive to the overall intent of the ArbCom's decision in this case.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein/FloNight

This is intended as a clarification of the remedy, but that necessarily involves discussing whether the remedy was interpreted correctly by Sandstein. Sandstein eventually said that the blocks were to enforce the second clause of the remedy: "...if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." (emphasis added) It's my contention that the changes I made were not reverted. I request that Sandstein or FloNight please provide the diffs showing the supposed revert. If there was no revert then either Sandstein misinterpreted the remedy, or the remedy does not mean what it says and so it should be reworded to reflect the actual intent of the committee.   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Pergamino himself claims that he did not revert my changes. Rather, he says below that he "made a few copy edits, added some new text, and changed the sub-sections a bit".   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

I've e-mailed the committee requesting that this discussion be suspended pending the resolution of a related matter.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by LessHeard vanU

If content is added by party A which is then "altered" in part or whole by party B and party A then removes those alterations so that the content is the same as when party A added it, what other term than "reverting" applies to the actions of party A? Is Will Beback arguing that the wording only applies to the reverting of a (whole) revert? This would make the remedy comparable with WP:WHEEL - where it is only the reverting by an admin of another sysops revision of the original admin action that triggers that situation. My reading, as provided at AE, is that any edit that substantially undoes another contributors edits to a section of content to return it to the previous or original edit is a revert and not allowable until 8 days has elapsed since the first edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Will Beback; I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert"; you appear to argue that only a wholesale revert of the original edit (in this case the introduction of content) would thus mean you should not return the content (the revert noted in the remedy) within the 7 days, whereas my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Roger Davies; "Clarification" is why we are here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad; Further to the above response to Roger Davies, it is because there may be good faith interpretation of remedy or decision that differs from which is intended (or understood to be that intended) that there needs to be careful application of language. This is a Wiki after all, and while the best is always the intention it may be found that better is yet to come. Against the necessary restrictions provided to diminish disruption there are the allowances that provide editors with the freedom to try to improve content within their understanding of policy. Careful wording provides the line where both needs are met. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

This is just in case I am expected to make a statement here as an involved party. With respect to the interpretation of the remedy at issue, I do not think that I have anything to say in addition to what I have already said in the discussion threads linked to above.  Sandstein  21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Milomedes

• "Revert limitations ¶ 3.1) ... Furthermore, if a user makes any changes to a subject article, and those changes are reverted, they may not repeat the change again within a seven day period." [Emphasis added]

• LessHeard vanU (21:04) states, "I refer to the latter section - my concern is to the interpretation of "revert";..."

• Will Beback (20:05) states, "I don't believe that there was ever a revert of my original edit..." ([29])

• LHvU (13:07) states, "...what other term than "reverting" applies...". LHvU (21:04) states, "...my reading is that returning the content to what you originally edited, even though it had been only altered rather than removed, within 7 days violated the remedy."

This clarification seems to turn on whether Pergamino did or did not take an action defined as a "revert" during these four edits: Pergamino 17:56, Pergamino 18:04, Pergamino 18:08, Pergamino 18:14; and also, what other term than "reverting" applies to Pergamino's four edits.

A dictionary definition of "revert" requires a return to a former condition:

• Random House/Dictionary.com "revert": "1. to return to a former habit, practice, belief, condition, etc..."

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, but they don't seem to have been changes that returned WB's text to a former condition. Thus they don't seem to described by a dictionary definition of "revert".

Wikipedia Help makes a distinction between "revert" and "reword", as well as between "revert" and "modifying":

• Help:Reverting#When to revert reads: "...if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit..."' [Emphasis added]

Pergamino's four edits made changes in Will Beback's text, that appear to be consistent with "reword" and "modifying", which Wikipedia Help distingishes from "revert" or "reverting".

My analysis of the above facts concludes that Pergamino did not revert Will Beback's original edit, as defined by both a dictionary and Wikipedia Help. Without a revert by Pergamino, Will Beback was free to revert Pergamino's reword and modifying edits without violating WP:RFAR:Prem Rawat 2#Revert limitations 3.1. Milo 03:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad

I agree with LessHeard vanU's thoughtful exposition (17:59 to NYB), including "Careful wording provides the line where both needs are met." The alternative is a form of rough justice whereunder editors with fine-parsing skills, useful in locating the neutral point of view, will be chilled into avoiding topics under arbitration restrictions. In another case, section #Review of articles urged, the committee urged "...knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved..." to "...address any perceived or discovered deficiencies." A lack of commitment to progressive rewording of demonstrably misunderstandable remedies, sends a counter-message to users not previously involved: Look what happened to an editor who tried to follow the rules – stay away. Milo 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

Sandtein's block of the editors was quite correct; one simply needs to take five minutes to review the arbitration enforcement thread to evaluate so. Will Beback's complaint therefore, I suggest, is with the validity of the arbitration decision: evidently, he is contesting it because he finds it to be unfair.

It is the Committee who are responsible for hearing complaints over past cases. Jury nullification is largely absent from arbitration enforcement. In this case, Sandstein did as required: he evaluated the complaint against prior Committee decisions and acted accordingly. No blame lies with him.

As to whether the Prem Rewat decision itself is conducive to a positive editing atmosphere (as enquired by NYB below), I confess myself to be fairly unfamiliar with the subject area and therefore not confident in my ability to offer a reliable response. However, it does strike me that, in the lack of widespread complaints from editors of the subject area that the arbitration decision is proving a serious hindrance to editing, this may clarification may simply be the manifestation of an editor's frustration at being called out for resorting to reverting rather than to discussion.

AGK 15:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Will Beback

Generally, the response to an editor who makes an edit without offering a rationale, either in his edit summary or on the article talk page, is to open a discussion—and not to revert the change. I would concede that, practically, the situation may dictate that the appropriate response to an undiscussed change may be slightly different, but I hope you see the reasoning behind my comment. I didn't intend to dishonour your record as a quite reasonable and sensible editor, and would apologise if you felt I did. AGK 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pergamino

What Will Beback is not saying is that the initial edit he made, although it was discussed, it was not agreed upon. Actually, there were many well-argued objections for that edit, but he decided he knew better and made the edit despite the objections. I came along and made a few copy edits, added some new text, and changed the sub-sections a bit. Will Beback's rationale to delete what I did and put back his version again, is that I didn't discuss it first. So basically, Will Beback is applying rules in an arbitrary manner: If he adds text that was discussed but not agreed, it's OK if he does it, but if I attempt to improve upon his work, then it's "undiscussed" and can be summarily deleted (BTW, he never said what was wrong with my edits, so I was left guessing). He also claims that the rule established by the arbiters "will discourage any further participation in this topic by outsiders", when in fact is that by not following the rule he is doing exactly that. Furthermore, he claims that "this remedy is so obtusely worded that an experienced editor such as myself breaks it without realizing it" — but me and other people told him several times that he had it wrong, and suggested to him to undo the edit so it will not be in violation of the rule, explanations that he ignored in toto. Is it too much to ask from Will BeBack to listen to his experienced peers, take it on the chin, and promise not to act like this again? Pergamino (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recuse, obviously. AGK 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse, per previous involvement in the topic area, in accord with my recusal from the relevant arbitration case. --Vassyana (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The remedy refers to "any given changes" and uses the plural "changes" four times, apart from in the final sentence ("repeat the change"). It seems clear enough to me that reverting any change is prohibited. I suppose, for the avoidance of any doubt, "the change" could be amended to "the change/s" and will support that if there's sufficient agreement from my colleagues but I'm not convinced it's necessary.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I genuinely believed I had clarified my understanding of this. My take is that, as drafted, editors are prohibited from reinstating in whole or in part reverted changes within seven days of the reversion.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• It strikes me that, rather than just finely parse the meaning of "revert" or "change" in the decision as we might if this were constitutional interpretation or biblical scholarship, an equally important question is which interpretation would best serve the purposes of the decision and the remedy, which were to allow for continued editing and improvement of the article as a part of the encyclopedia while minimizing sterile edit-warring. I'd welcome comments on this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Sandstein's interpretation of the the sanction. And per the related discussions at, AE and AN/I, the consensus was that the blocks were administered in a fair way. The intend of the proposal is to create an atmosphere where discussion is used to settle content disagreements instead of reverting. Hopefully overtime this will help us reach the goal of stable articles that are well sourced and written from a NPOV. I think it is too soon to judge the success of the remedies. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:35, 30 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/Footnoted quotes (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:

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

Notified

Question by jc37

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes

Due to this case, User:Alansohn received a restriction.

In the time since then, though he apparently has done good work in vandal patrol, and elsewhere, he simply hasn't followed the restriction. And though he hasn't been blocked (or even warned) for "every" violation, this section at least lists blocks related to these issues.

I therefore have a few questions:

The first is whether the 1 year restriction was to restart at the occurrence of each block (something I've seen done in other arbcom cases).

The second is to ask: if it is determined that User:alansohn is not following the restriction, what would/should be the next course of action (if any)?

The third is (if the answer to my first question is "no"), does the committee feel that the 1 year restriction should be lifted at this time?

I feel that these are timely questions since, in roughly 2 weeks, it will be one year since the closure of the case.

Thank you in advance for clarification on this. - jc37 14:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not sure that you (the arbitrators) have answered my second question.

The simple fact is that User:Alansohn isn't following the restriction, and hasn't been throughout the timeframe of the restriction.

The block log aside, one need only look at my talk page (and related links there) to see recent evidence of that.

From what I can tell, the biggest problem is the presumption of bad faith of other editors (often magnified with incivility). A look at his statement below even shows indications of this.

I hesitate to add diffs showing examples of this simply due to the large volume of examples.

So no, this really isn't, and shouldn't be considered, "moot". It's a constant, ongoing problem, and one that I believe needs to be resolved.

So please clarify what you feel the "next step" should then be? - jc37 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Alansohn

A year was mandated and a year will end in two weeks. Now Jc37 appears to be trying to maintain this "Footnoted Quotes" beyond what was determined and agreed upon. In the past 12 months, I have made somewhere around 150,000 edits (I haven't counted), added tens of thousands of references to a few thousand articles, expanded articles for every one of the 566 municipalities and 120 state legislators in New Jersey and almost all of its school districts and high schools (I think I've missed a few), written from scratch over 300 DYK articles (the most of any Wikipedia editor) and been one of the most prolific vandal fighters in my spare time.

Enough is enough. While I still maintain deep concerns regarding the manner in which the original decision was reached, I've done my time and that time is over. I look forward to the end of these restrictions, after which Jc37 will be free to use whatever legitimate administrative measures are necessary to deal with any future perceived problems -- real or imagined -- once these "editing restrictions" are over. Only now they will have to be weighed against real standards with proper oversight, and applied under the same standards that should be applied to all editors with (hopefully) a small measure of the consistency that has been absent over the past year.

That I have been able to accomplish so much in this past year given the undue harshness of these restrictions is a small miracle. I look forward to accomplishing that much more in the next year without the claim of "editing restrictions" being waved as a threat. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• "So please clarify what you feel the "next step" should then be?" Evaluate all users fairly and objectively, both for those who agree with your personal interpretations of policy and especially those who don't where your judgment may be clouded. Avoid using administrative measures with editors where there is a clear conflict of interest. Resist the urge to use "special enforcement" (Wikipedia's own version of Double Secret Probation) as a crutch or to prolong a process that was already arbitrarily long and been remarkably disruptive. Join me in counting down the days to freedom. Move on. Alansohn (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• (Caveat: I was inactive when this case was decided.) In general, sitebans and blocks are restarted when violations (typically socking) are detected. However, the clock on other types of sanctions, such as the civility restriction imposed in this case, typically is not automatically reset upon a violation. I very strongly urge that Alansohn render this discussion a moot issue by adhering to a reasonable level of civility both before or after the one-year period expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments. With the expiry of the extension, nothing is stopping an administrator from using the restriction, and violations thereof, in considering whether a block is appropriate and if so of what length. If problems are persistent, the community is also free to (re)impose an appropriate restriction. Reiterating NYB, if Alansohn adheres to a decent level of civility, this will be entirely moot. --Vassyana (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per both preceding. Alansohn, please contact us if there are any concerns of baiting (which can happen with editors who have been subject to civility sanctions). Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Newyorkbrad and Vassyana. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 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: Appeals process (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

With the "Appeals" section gone, it might help to clarify what route users wishing to appeal a Arbitration Committee remedy or enforcement should take. Or was the removal inadvertent? I'm thinking about users such as Everyking, Tango etc who have had cases whose restrictions or rulings (as opposed to bans) they wish to appeal. I'm fairly sure those aren't intended to be handled off-wiki, and yet "Amendments" doesn't state they should be posted there either. Clarification required, please? Thanks.

(If this has been addressed elsewhere or doesn't need a clarification, please just fix any instructions which need to show it, and remove this request.)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Question by Rootology

I was meaning to ask why we don't just toss up a nice pretty and small "global" header template (the sort that goes dead center, up top) on each of these main RFAR pages so that people just know where to go for what? rootology (C)(T) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I suppose there should be another section of this page for "appeals", although honestly the page has become more than complicated enough already. For that matter, we should probably distinguish between an appeal from another individual or body to us ("User:X appealed his block by Admin:Y to the ArbCom") and a request that we reconsider, update, or vacate one of our own rulings, even though we have typically used the term to refer to the latter as well ("Desysopped Admin:Z can seek return of the tools through a new RfA or an appeal to this Committee"). In any event, unless and until someone confuses me by reformatting the page again, a user with an appeal can file it under new cases or clarifications or amendments or whatever; we will see it in any event. But given that the result of a successful appeal is to change the outcome of the prior decision, I suppose that "Requests for amendment" is the most logical of the current choices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per preceding, amendment I feel is the logical and best term and place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 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 (1) (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:

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

Statement by Touretzky

I haven't logged into my Wikipedia account in quite a while, so I was not aware that I had been dragged into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology until a friend told me today that I'd been topic banned. I wish to protest this ban as unjustified.

A look at my edit history shows that I have not edited any Scientology-related article since 2007. (Been busy doing other things.) I contributed a few typo/grammar fixes in 2008, but none of those articles were about Scientology. It is unreasonable to topic ban me in 2009 when I've never received any kind of reprimand or caution about any edits I've made, and have done nothing wrong, even when I was editing Scientology articles back in 2007.

Second, the ruling criticizes me for editing the article on Applied Scholastics and for including a link to my StudyTech.org web site. The StudyTech.org web site is the primary reference for anyone who wants a critical look at the subject. That is why the current Applied Scholastics article, which I have not touched since 2007, continues to link to StudyTech.org; any article that did not link to this resource would be incomplete. I don't think it's Wikpedia policy that only non-experts can edit an article. And I contest the claim that my edits are self-interested. People write about what they know. Being a Scientology critic shouldn't prohibit me from editing Scientology-related articles any more than being a Scientologist would.

Being topic banned is humiliating and, in my case, unjustified. I'd like to request that this ban be rescinded.

Response to Shutterbug

The studytech.org web site contains an extensive archive of newspaper and magazine articles about Applied Scholastics, its affiliated organizations, and study technology, going back as far as 1980. It contains a well-researched article by Chris Owen about the organizational structure of Applied Scholastics and its relationship to the Church of Scientology. It contains a sentence-by-sentence comparison of the supposedly secular Basic Study Manual (an Applied Scholastics publication) with Scientology religious scripture. It also contains a roughly 15,000 word critical essay by me and Chris Owen with extensive quotations and citations. There is no other resource anywhere on the web, including Applied Scholastics' own web sites, that contains comparable information. Studytech.org is listed as recommended further reading by John T. Hatfield, Benjamin J. Hubbard, and James A. Santucci in their book An Educator's Classroom Guide to America's Religious Beliefs and Practices (2007): see p. 98. (You can "look inside this book" at Amazon.com.) What Shutterbug attempts to dismiss as a "personal web site" is in fact the primary critical resource on the web for learning about study technology and Applied Scholastics. Wikipedia articles must be NPOV, but there is no requirement that external links point only to sites that are NPOV. So if it's impermissible to include this site in the list of external links at the end of a Wikipedia article, I'd like to know why, because I really don't get it. -- Touretzky (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

2nd response to Shutterbug

WP:RS applies to sources used to support statements in Wikipedia articles; it does not apply to the external links section at the end of an article. Sites that WP:RS would frown upon (e.g., wikis, personal web pages) are common in external links sections. For example, the article on Kirstie Alley includes an external link to a Star Trek wiki. In any case, topic banning me in May 2009 for having added an external link back in October 2007 is absurd. -- Touretzky (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Thatcher

Thank you for the pointer to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Convenience_links. I understand the policy and will adhere to it. However, the language about "convenience links" that you are referring to now, in May 2009, did not exist in the version that was current in October 2007. Furthermore, this policy refers to links used in citations. What I'm being taken to task for is adding an external link, so the relevant policy would seem to be WP:EL. I believe I can make a good case for an external link to studytech.org in accordance with the current version of WP:EL, but the place to do that would be the article's Talk page, which I am now banned from editing. My purpose here is to argue that topic banning a user who has never received any sort of caution from any Wikipedia admin, for a link they added in good faith 19 months ago, is not a reasonable way to instruct someone in the finer points of Wikipedia editorial policy. Telling them to do penance for six months (in Scientology this would be called an amends project) and then apply to have the ban lifted does not make this action any more reasonable. -- Touretzky (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to RogerDavies

Your comments are phrased in general language, which suggests that you are addressing the broader proposals of Durova and Zippy rather than the specifics of my case. So let me describe how things look from where I'm sitting. I was happily living my life, making occasional typo and grammar fixes to Wikipedia articles having nothing to do with Scientology, and completely oblivious to the bedlam you describe. For reasons that are still unclear to me, my name got dragged into an arbitration request I knew nothing about, and I ended up topic banned. Then the story hit Slashdot. Now I have people emailing me saying "I see you got banned from Wikipedia." Today I received my first journalist inquiry about the ArbCom decision. What am I to tell this person?

I have never been uncivil to anyone on Wikipedia, despite extreme provocation. In June 2005 a Wikipedia biography page was created for me by a Scientologist that was so outrageously defamatory that Jimbo Wales himself became involved, urging me to take no action and let the Wikipedia admins deal with the issue. I did as he asked. This was before WP:BLP even existed. (In fact, I think this was one of the incidents that reinforced the need for WP:BLP.) A lot has changed since 2005.

I've spent the last few days reacquainting myself with Wikipedia, and I've noticed two significant changes. First, the Scientology articles are far more meticulously sourced today than back when I was an active contributor. I take this as evidence of constructive tension between critics and believers, despite what other shenanigans might also be taking place between some of these people. Second, Wikipedia policies are significantly more detailed and comprehensive than when I first arrived on the scene. At this point, although I would like to be able to contribute again to Scientology articles, and also to the Robotics Portal, I would welcome the assistance of a mentor who can provide some guidance, because it's clear that the penalties for error can be severe, and there is no statute of limitations. -- Touretzky (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cool Hand Luke

I'm sorry to see that, like Roger Davies, you have chosen to respond in general terms rather than address the specifics of my case. Here is the flaw in the "rehabilitation" argument. Suppose I go off and do penance as you suggest, working on articles in some other areas where I have expertise, incurring no warnings or sanctions of any kind and receiving no mentoring from anyone. Who is to say that in 2011 I won't be publicly banned from editing articles in the Robotics Portal because some link I added in good faith in 2009 is later deemed to violate WP:COI, or some deletion I viewed as vandalism and reverted is deemed 2 years later to be edit warring? You might say, "This is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We would not take such a harsh and unreasonable action in 2011." I would hope that's true, but that is precisely what is happening in 2009 based on edits I made in good faith in 2007. Is this really the precedent the ArbComm intends everyone to live by now? -- Touretzky (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shutterbug

Comment: Reading the appeal of Touretzky I find that he did not get it. His personal websites are not an authoritative source for anything but his own state of mind and him pushing them into Wikipedia articles is exactly what he was topic-banned for. Shutterbug (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to DT: Dave, read up on Wikipedia policy, will you? Quiz: Copies of secondary sources hosted on private attack websites. Allowed per WP:RS or not? Shutterbug (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Perhaps this motion should be expanded to include other editors who had not edited the topic for a very long time before the case began. Intending this equally toward both 'sides': it's about principle, not ideology. Wikipedia remedies are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. It is unlikely that any sanctions proposal against an editor who hadn't touched a topic since 2007 would have passed--or even been taken seriously--if similar proposals had gone up at AN or ANI. That applies generally, not simply to long term disputes.

When you go for the nuclear option, you may get Chernobyl. Indiscriminate and/or punitive sanctions could make the topic radioactive. Looking ahead, I worry about the long term impact upon this topic if the uninvolved Wikipedians whose assistance the Committee seeks to encourage become fearful to make the attempt. Durova^Charge! 02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Touretzky's humble request for mentorship ought not to be necessary; he hasn't edited the topic in a year and a half. It is prejudicial to suggest that his topic ban is preventative or rehabilitative: this editor has no need of rehabilitation for having added an external link to an article in compliance with policy as it existed at the time, nor need he be prevented from complying with policy in future. In good faith I would like to suppose that the Committee's decision to sanction him was the result of overwork and carelessness, that such an eminently capable editor was placed under severe sanction on the basis of hardly any evidence at all, yet it would be remiss at this stage if I failed to note the suspicion that he was sanctioned not for his actions but for his putative beliefs. It is with deep regret that I repeat the declaration, due to the capricious actions of this year's Arbitration Committee in several cases, I have ceased accepting new mentorships. The Committee owes this man an apology for the real world damage it has done to his reputation, and the Committee owes the community a pledge that it will not repeat the gross error in judgment upon other volunteers. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to the arbitrators who have posted: ArbCom routinely holds editors responsible not only for their intentions but also for the consequences of their actions. The Committee must hold itself to the same standard. Regardless of intentions, the decision in this case caused international headlines. It also topic banned a scientist from a major university who edits under his real name, and sanctioned him upon a frivolous rationale. He initiated this request along with a query what to do about a journalist who had asked him for a statement. At the very least, an arbitrator ought to have informed him of the existence of ComCom promptly. A day and a half later, when the sparseness of reply caused worries, I did so. No arbitrator had. It was hardly an expectation, when I used the word 'milquetoast' to describe earlier decisions, that such indiscriminate action would result, or such poor followup where timeliness is essential. Please set this right. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

To Cool Hand Luke: the editor I mentor is well known to have been a former edit warrior. Early in the case I asked the Committee to disregard his behavior from two years ago and weigh him in terms of more recent actions. Afterward many more names were added, and when it became apparent that evidence against Steve Dufour from two years ago was being weighed I asked the Committee to extend the same courtesy to Steve Dufour and to all the named parties. Steve Dufour had been partisan on the opposite side of the dispute. So it's a very odd to see the word wikilawyering being applied. Wasn't I ethically obligated to be consistent about this principle? And isn't it normal at this website to refrain from sanctioning over very old behaviors that have not been repeated in over a year? Durova^Charge! 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Zippy

Moved comments from other sections to new single section. KnightLago (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've read the arbitration decision and User:Touretzky's appeal. Given the evidence that Touretzky presents, it seems reasonable to reconsider the topic ban on this editor. If there were activity in the past year in support of this ban, or examples of egregiously disruptive behavior, I would think otherwise, but I fail to see such evidence. --Zippy (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to and agreement with Durova

This is also what I am thinking. Let's say we're dealing with a user who makes edits in good faith, whether they get the ethos of the Wikipedia or not. This is pretty common, and the normal action is to guide the user, warn them if the behavior continues, and block as a last resort, but even then, block only for a short amount of time (a day, a week).

In this case, we have a user, Touretzky, who made edits that the arbitration committee has decided are not in keeping with the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. The edits were over a year ago, and Touretzky says he received no warning at the time, yet did not create any more events deemed worthy of arbitration attention or warning or sanction.

Whether the user gets it or not is missing the point. I believe that bringing down the ban-hammer on a user as step one, or even step n, is premature if they a) have not received guidance from the community at the time the edit occurred, and b) have not continued to make edits that go against the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.

In this case, Touretzky is engaged in a dialog with the greater Wikipedia community, something that can be achieved with less than a topic ban. I would rather that we assume good faith and allow this user to be free of the mark of sanction so long as his present behavior is within the norms of so many other editors who have yet to fully grok Wikipedia. By topic banning, I believe we are more likely to lose an editor than we are to bring them up to speed. --Zippy (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Roger Davies

No doubt this topic is a particularly polarizing one, I think everyone would agree with that. My question is more about the right way to bring users into the fold. For a user's first experience with official guidance to be not a warning, but a topic ban, seems heavy-handed considering the actions by the user occurred in 2007. As the user has not in recent memory been engaged in any behavior worth objection, and has made constructive edits on other topics in the meantime, why not talk to the user rather than sanction them?

While I accept that your intent with a topic ban is to rehabilitate the user, I suspect that in many cases, if a user were faced with a topic ban as the first action against them, we would be unlikely to see that user return. And so I would like us to assume good faith here, not in a wikilawyerly way, but as a reasonable path, considering the user has not done anything that anyone has objected to for over a year. --Zippy (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cool Hand Luke

With all respect to the difficulty the arbitration committee faces with the edits on the topic of Scientology, Touretzky engaged in no objectionable edits for one and a half years prior to the arbitration committee's decision. Why ask for more evidence of good behavior when you have at least 18 months of it? --Zippy (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

User:Shutterbug is a named party in the arbitration committee's decision. --Zippy (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

The object of the decision is to require single-purpose editors on Scientology topics, or on Scientology aspects of other topics (such as [30] to demonstrate a commitment to Wikipedia's model of cooperative editing by editing other topics for a while; the ban may be appealed after 6 months. Regarding studytech.org, it is not a reliable source as such. Where it contains newspaper articles and other reliable content, the appropriate practice is to cite the original source, even if it is not online and can not be made an active link. There are several reasons for this, primarily a) a site hosting a copy of someone else's copyrighted news article may be infringing on the original copyright and Wikipedia frowns on contributory infringement, and b) there is a risk that partisan archives may not be completely accurate. For more information see the "Convenience links" section of Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Thatcher 12:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Antaeus Feldspar

"... Lest there be any doubt, there are the editors who, over the years, have got the topic into the toxic mess it is today. There is no evidence whatsoever that the passage of time has changed the deeply held beliefs of the topic-banned editors nor influenced their ability to behave correctly. If any have moved on from Scientology, a Scientology topic ban will not hurt them. If they have not moved on, six months pottering around Wikipedia learning how policy works in other less-contentious areas will do them no harm. There is no element of punishment in any of the topic-bans; they are preventative and rehabilitive." Roger Davies, at [31]

I am afraid that these assertions from Roger Davies cause me to wonder anew just how well Roger, and the other members of the Arbitration Committee, actually understand the effects of the decision they have handed down. The statement that the topic-bans are "preventative and rehabilitive," and that "there is no element of punishment in any of the topic-bans," is so startling that I can only think that Roger has in mind only what the intent behind the topic-bans was, and has perhaps not realized that the effect of the ArbCom's punishment is substantially different from what it might have envisioned or intended.

The ArbCom may choose to believe that it is not bound by the precedents of previous cases, but it cannot ignore those precedents. With that in mind, let's look at a case from the past, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. It does not take much examination of the evidence to get a sense of Terryeo; I actually suspect that a reader can get a fairly strong sense from just one section of the evidence, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence#Evidence presented by Antaeus Feldspar, showing just one point on which Terryeo argued endlessly and tendentiously, accusing other editors of inserting opinion and original research, accusing other editors of lying, removing citations with false claims about the contents of the cited sources, and inserting his own opinion and original research (yes, after loudly demonizing others for allegedly doing so.) So what is my point in bringing up the case of Terryeo? Simply this: That arbitration case was called to deal with just one problem user, and after all the evidence (about 120 diffs by my count) presented to show that user's problem behavior on Scientology and Dianetics related pages, the ArbCom chose the following remedy: "Terryeo is banned indefinitely from articles which relate to Dianetics or Scientology. He may make appropriate comments on talk pages." (emphasis added.)

By sentencing current editors to a complete topic ban, specifically stated to exclude talk pages, the current Arbitration Committee is making the clear statement, whether it is intentional or not: all these editors are greater offenders than Terryeo. They must be, or else it would not be necessary to sentence them more harshly than Terryeo, based on less evidence.

Perhaps in a world where "what happens on Wikipedia, stays on Wikipedia," it might be true that painting these editors as offenders so severe that the ArbCom must use topic-banning as a first resort rather than last has "no element of punishment". Perhaps in a world where reputation has no effect whatsoever, or a world without Google, this drastic depiction "will not hurt them." Not in this world, however. It was not that long ago that I was on a lunch date with a lovely young lady that I had been recently introduced to, and she started the conversation, to my shock, with her observations on my past difficulties at the hands of Zordrac (talk · contribs). I was fortunate that she was able to recognize Zordrac (a.k.a. Internodeuser) as possessed of neither honesty or good judgment -- but could I have expected her to recognize that the Arbitration Committee, when it chose the drastic remedy of topic-banning, was simply trying to find a "rehabilitive" remedy? Could I have expected her, frankly, to believe such a claim, when I myself find it hard to credit? Could I expect a prospective employer, Googling me, to believe that the Arbitration Committee thought its topic-ban on me was purely "preventative"? I do not think anyone looking at my contributions, noting the complete absence of any article edits from the end of June 2007 right up to the current day, would believe that the ArbCom applied a "preventative" remedy, because quite obviously there was no reason to think there was anything to prevent.

"There is no evidence whatsoever that the passage of time has changed the deeply held beliefs of the topic-banned editors nor influenced their ability to behave correctly" -- I think that it might be said, quite gently, that it is not the place of the Arbitration Committee to change the deeply held beliefs of any editor, whether those beliefs be Scientology or science. Nor is it rational for any member of the ArbCom to expect editors to change their deeply held beliefs to suit the pleasures of the Arbitration Committee. Editor behavior is the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee. If the Arbitration Committee wishes to influence editor behavior in a positive direction, however, I cannot think that relying purely on "the passage of time" to "influence their ability to behave correctly" is an advisable course of action. Neither is employing as a first resort, for editors made aware for the first time that their behavior is of concern to the ArbCom, remedies more severe than those used as a last resort against editors with long and blatant histories. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Cool Hand Luke

"I'm puzzled by the claim that these topic bans are punitive." Generally speaking, sanctions have one of three rationales: punitive, preventative, or rehabilitative.

With reference to any one of the multiple editors who had been completely inactive on the topic of Scientology -- or completely inactive, period -- for over a year prior to the start of the case, it really is very hard to see what sort of imminent disruption the ArbCom might have believed that they were "preventing". Did they really believe that Touretzky's complete inactivity from 27 September 2008 onward was just the prelude to some sort of disruptive return, which had to be prevented with the immediately brute-force remedy of a topic-ban?

It is even harder for any reasonable person to believe that the topic bans would have a "rehabilitative" effect. No one who has a choice chooses to "rehabilitate" unless they are given some reason to believe that there is a better place which can be theirs at the end of the process. The Arbitration Committee gave no such reason. On the contrary, by interpreting editors' records in the worst possible light (for instance, jumping to the conclusion that a large number of Scientology edits is automatically a history of POV warring, and that the only deleted contributions worth considering in an editor's record must have been to BLPs[32]), by labelling them as an imminent threat that could only be dealt with by a brute-force remedy that skipped all the "other avenues" that it is expected will be tried first, the Arbitration Committee gave all those editors reason to believe that if they stayed (or, in many cases, returned) they would be devalued and treated as criminals. What exactly the Arbitration Committee think that they provided as incentive for anyone to "rehabilitate"?

Sanctions have one of three rationales: punitive, preventative, or rehabilitative. People are referring to these topic-bans as punitive measures because of those three, only a punitive intent makes sense of what the ArbCom did. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that there is in fact a fourth category. The common assumption uniting the first three is that the sanction is aimed primarily to affect the putative offender(s). Sanctions in the fourth category are those where the real priority is to affect someone else. Examples would be sanctions intended to "send a message", or to ward off accusations of bias by showing that the decision-makers are willing to punish both sides equally (whether or not both sides offended equally.) The problem with fourth-category sanctions is that they destroy trust. No one likes to be used, not even in a good cause. So once again, the sanctions don't make sense as preventative or rehabilitative, and the other possibilities that do make sense are all very bad roads to take Wikipedia down. -- Antaeus Feldspar (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Anynobody

The simple truth here is that any editor trying to add info to Scientology topics has three basic types of sources to use:

• 1) Mainstream media and government (Like the LA Times, Time, the New York Times, the FBI, etc...)
• 2) Scientology
• 3) Scientology critics

Clearly info from Scientology and its critics has a place in our articles, but since both sides are biased more space must be reserved for mainstream sources without a bias one way or another. When drawing upon mainstream sources one can't help but notice the overall negative tone of coverage. Since neutrality, as defined in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, means including all relevant non-biased sources. If we do that with regards to Scientology articles, the negative tone in our sources will also be reflected in our articles.

If one wants to give an overall neutral tone to Scientology articles, the only way to do so would be ignoring articles with titles like; "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power". I can't make a topic sound any better or worse than the sources available make it sound, in this case they make Scientology sound pretty bad. It's not Dr. Touretzky's, Antaeus Feldspar's, or my fault that our sources paint a negative picture of Scientology. Anynobody(?) 04:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Erik9

With all due respect to Roger Davies, his claim that "There is no element of punishment in any of the topic-bans" is completely and blatantly incorrect. While the bans may not have been enacted with a punitive intent, they do in fact serve to punish the editors against whom they were imposed. In a variety of ways, users subject to active sanctions by the Arbitration Committee are relegated to second-class citizenship on Wikipedia - for instance, they are persona non grata at RFA; Davies' assertion that "If any have moved on from Scientology, a Scientology topic ban will not hurt them" is obviously false. For this reason, while the committee may view past conduct as the background against which current behavior is considered, it should not sanction editors except when necessary to control present disruption. If the Arbitration Committee will not reverse its decision to topic-ban users over editing that occurred in 2007 and earlier, then Jimbo Wales should. Erik9 (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tilman

I notice that most of the topic-banned critics haven't edited for a long time - so they have already done what the ban is meant to do ("editing other topics for a while"). Although this sounds like a conspiracy theory, it looks to me as if the idea was to block a few inactive critics to avoid a lawsuit by scientology, so to make it appear that the ban is "balanced", so that heads from "both sides" are put on pikes.

Yeah, the ban can be "appealed" after six months. Considering the way that my topic-ban was constructed in the first place (falsely labelling me a single purpose account, later corrected to a "Scientology-focused" account, then using edits on one single deleted-contrary-to-AFD article from three years ago as "evidence", but hiding the evidence-edits from the accused), I'd expect this "appeals" process to be like these parole hearings in movies, where the innocent guy is denied parole only after he admits guilt and feels "sincerly" sorry in several hearings :-) --Tilman (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused, in accordance with my recusal from the relevant case. --Vassyana (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment When this case came to us, it came with impassioned pleas to deal with the battlefield that it had become. The problems had spilled over into the noticeboards, and had neutralised their capacities to provide effective solutions. Policy was either ignored or endlessly wikilawyered to suit the agendas of the warring pro- and anti- factions. In this maelstrom, neutral editors either became radicalised and joined one or other warring faction, or were attacked and driven away by both sides. Clearly, a more robust approach than tea and milquetoast was needed.
• The core issue is that, for many editors, Scientology is an immensely polarising topic. The editors who have been topic-banned fit squarely either into the pro- or anti- factions, or have walked in link-step with them. Lest there be any doubt, there are the editors who, over the years, have got the topic into the toxic mess it is today. There is no evidence whatsoever that the passage of time has changed the deeply held beliefs of the topic-banned editors nor influenced their ability to behave correctly. If any have moved on from Scientology, a Scientology topic ban will not hurt them. If they have not moved on, six months pottering around Wikipedia learning how policy works in other less-contentious areas will do them no harm. There is no element of punishment in any of the topic-bans; they are preventative and rehabilitive.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm puzzled by the claim that these topic bans are punitive. Rather, we hope to prevent the old POV wars by ensuring that the participants have reformed (as several participants have). These users may demonstrate a commitment to our project in other ways. If anything, I think not enough of these old warriors were topic banned. I would be much more interested in topic banning stragglers than overturning any of these for the wikilawyering "principle" of a statute of limitations.
  Our project is to build an encyclopedia. None of the warriors should return before they demonstrate that their swords have turned into plowshares. In the meantime, there are plenty of other fields to tend. Cool Hand Luke 07:25, 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: How to appeal to the community (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.

---

(This concerns Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman Fred Talk 12:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Look, if you don't want to handle an issue, say so, and help me work out how it should be taken to the community. Archiving it while several unresponded issues are still up is just disrespectful.

The case involved huge amounts of procedural issues, that, at the least, meant the case could not be decided fairly, had no previous dispute resolution, ignored the belated dispute resolution entirely, and had documented wagon-circling by the Arbcom to protect one of their own, while going on a grand fishing expedition check of every admin action I had ever made in order to find something - anything - to justify the case against me being taken long after the person in question had been unblocked. Furthermore, I can't help ut think this was all an effort to subvert the Arbcom elections, which I was running in. At the least, this deserves a promise never to allow such a thing to happen again.

Thank you,

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by EdChem

I've been debating what, if anything, to say in support of Shoemaker's Holiday's request for ArbCom to do the honourable thing. I'm not going to go over in detail all the reasons why the case was fatally flawed - we all know what they are: we all know that the case was only accepted because of an ArbCom member's involvement, that that members behaviour during the case would have been sanctioned in an "ordinary" editor, and that the motivation was to make an example. We know that at least one member decided their position within hours of the case opening, and without waiting for any evidence from Shoemaker's Holiday. We know that the RfC held during the case did not support the punishment handed out. Some ArbComm members would be aware of the private evidence submitted, and the lack of communication concerning it. Collectively, this more than justifies vacating the case, but the present ArbCom has been unwilling to take that step, despite some progress in recognising the failures from the past.

So, I would like to point out some other reasons why ArbCom needs to act further on the Matthew Hoffman case. My first reason is that it is good for ArbCom. It is apparent that concerns exist over admitting that mistakes have happened and that decisions need changing. Certainly, such admissions can be used by critics to throw accusations. However, when the mistakes are ones that are evident to most onlookers already, remaining steadfast does not show strength. Truly, you will garner far more respect from standing up and saying 'yep, there was a mistake there, but we have acted to address it'. Admitting to mistakes and showing that appropriate lessons have been learned is also a powerful signal of breaking from the past. The 2008 elections demonstrated enormous discontent with the ArbCom of 2008, and the call for change and improvement was near-deafening. Tangibly showing that previous activities will not be allowed to repeat is both appropriate and wise.

The community's respect for ArbCom as an institution is dependent not only on its actions but also on the behaviour of its members and the integrity of its processes. I expect that Committee members would agree that protecting the institution of ArbCom is one of their responsibilities. Numerous actions have already been taken this year that recognise the importance of the institution. Removing former arbitrators from the mailing list, acting quickly following the revelations about Sam Blacketer, and the de-functionary-ing of Jayjg (sp?) are three examples. In this same vein, ArbCom needs to take a formal stance on Charles Matthews. His behaviour on-wiki was bad, but even worse (as I have raised elsewhere) was his misuse of confidential materials to which he had access.

Let me put this plainly: Charles Matthews, initiated the case, and was a party to it. He was recused from acting as an arbitrator, although he continued to receive case-related emails. He must have read some of these emails as he responded to my email about the case. My email indicated it was about the case in the subject line, so there is no possibility that he did not realise the topic. There is absolutely no justification I can see for his reading and responding to that email. We have no way of knowing if he responded to other emails, whether he was reading any commentary about decision making between active arbitrators (either on email or the private wiki), or whether anything he read influenced the evidence he presented or the style he chose to present it. I have no evidence of off-wiki wrong doing beyond the proof that he read my email submission. Surely the 2009 ArbCom needs to make it absolutely 100% crystal clear that arbitrators in cases where they are recused or a party are absolutely forbidden from using their privileged access to confidential case materials in any way, and may not even read such materials? I put it that this is another aspect of the case which ArbCom must address in order to protect the institution.

Having indicated some reasons why it is in ArbCom's interest to act, I'd like to try to illustrate why I think it is important to act from Shoemaker's Holiday's perspective. I have not asked him about these comments, so the thoughts and insights (if any) are mine and I am not speaking on his behalf. I was interested to read a recent comment from an ArbCom member that "nothing [ArbCom] decide[s] is meant to have any consequences in the offline world". I suggest that the original MH case was a spectacular failure in that respect, in that it had negative health consequences for Shoemaker's Holiday that were in no way justified by the issue in the case. Now, it could reasonably be argued that an ArbCom case is always a source of stress for the participants - and particularly for those who are facing potential sanctions. However, Shoemaker's Holiday's health situation would have made this off-wiki effect very much worse, and could easily make the effects linger. Rather than simply shrug off a perceived injustice ("life's like that"), it could easily become a subject of obssessive thought and a considerable burden to carry. Worse, it would be very easy for an ArbCom sanction to feed into self-doubt and a self-destructive internal monologue. Can you imagine the damage from having thoughts of being wronged and unjustly publicly humiliated (and in your real name) chasing other thoughts that you are a terrible person, that you were stripped of your tools for how bad you are, and that you must be bad for so much effort to have gone into hurting you around and around and around in your head? I don't know if that is Shoemaker's Holiday is experiencing. I do know more than enough about the condition to know it is a reasonable guess. And, I am sure that such thoughts could have been circling around (along with many others, of course) for the entire time that has passed. Vacating the case or acknowledging the flaws, the biases, and the mistakes could offer Shoemaker's Holiday relief from one of the pressures that have affected his health. The tenacity with which he has continued to pursue the case clearly demonstrate how important the issue has become for him. If you aren't willing to act for other reasons, perhaps compassion for his sufferring is a motivation to do the honourable thing.

The final reason I wish to offer is that even with the present modification in place, Shoemaker's Holiday's wiki-reputation still carries a stain. He remains branded as an ArbCom-sanctioned editor. Some of you might feel that is only in his mind - in which case I'd refer you to the paragraph above. However, I suggest that the reputation effect of a brush with ArbCom is something that is essentially permanent. If you think of the appeals from Everyking, or the numerous ones relating to Scientology at present, you see clear indications where people are concerned with the damage a sanction can do to their reputation. It does not matter if the sanction has no practical effect remaining, the fact of being ArbCom-sanctioned is all that is required for the damage to be done. Here I also note the extra piles of reputation-darkening words that were added by Charles Matthews in the ArbCom 2008 elections. His comments that an emergency desysop (like in Archtransit's case) would have been the better solution, in retrospect. How are editors unfamiliar with the case going to look at such a suggestion? They might well infer that the case was so clear-cut that going straight to sanctioning was justified, or that some terrible damage was being done that urgently needed preventing. The reputational damage to Shoemaker's Holiday from the case was compounded by such a suggestion - and yet, as the record stands, Shoemaker's Holiday is an ArbCom-sanctioned editor who resigned under a cloud in the face of an ArbCom desysopping... and Charles Matthews is an unsanctioned and unreprimanded former arbitrator and (I think) current functionary. Is that just? Do those circumstances reflect well on ArbCom as an institution? With all that was wrong with the MH case, wouldn't there be some justice in offering to Shoemaker's Holiday the alternative label of ArbCom-exonerated editor?

Please please please do the right thing for ArbCom, for Shoemaker's Holiday, and for Wikipedia. State for the record what we know to be true. Offer the apology that is long overdue. And, demonstrate that the 2009 ArbCom is different, and will not tolerate arbitrator behaviour nor cases like Matthew Hoffman. Finally resolve this issue by vacating the case.

Thanks... EdChem (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment by arbitrators

Appeals of Committee decisions may be made to Jimbo Wales. If you then want to appeal his response to someone else, you'll have to discuss the proper procedure with him personally.

As far as the substance of your comments goes: we are not able to act on your request because you have not been able to provide a consistent answer about what it is you're actually asking for. Going through your comments on this request and the last one, I can see at least eight distinct requests (or what looks to me like requests):

1. That we declare all findings in the case, including those not about you, invalid
2. That we rescind the restriction on your seeking adminship in the future which was left in place after the last change to the case
3. That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the case should not have been accepted
4. That we should change the text of the case pages to state that the handling of the case suffered from procedural errors
5. That we should change the text of the case pages to be an analysis of the mistakes made during the case
6. That we should apologize for our handling of the case
7. That we should admit wrongdoing in regards to our handling of the case
8. That we should promise not to repeat our handling of the case

Some of these—broadly, the latter six—are, in my opinion, reasonable requests; the first two, however, are not. I see no substantive reason to rescind our finding that Matthew Hoffman was innocent of the charges against him; and I do not believe it would be in the best interests of the project for you to seek adminship without talking to us.

Generally speaking, though, it is incumbent on you to tell us precisely what action you want us to take; please feel free to just name items off the list above, if that helps, but we're not going to come up with something on our own when there's no guarantee that it will satisfy you. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The Committee, on the noticeboard, has now issued a statement relating to this matter. I believe the present request can be archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 19 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/Abd and JzG (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:

• Beetstra (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by Beetstra

In principle 8.1.5 (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG#Purpose of the spam blacklist) is stated "Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions.".

Case: A true spammer is coming to spam his commercial link to Wikipedia (e.g. a porn or viagra site), adding it to multiple pages, using multiple accounts/IPs. When those links are reverted, then the editors who revert, make the content decision 'we don't want your link here'. When the case gets too difficult to keep reverting and blocking and page protections are not deterring the editor who pushes the link, then an admin could add their link to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. That admin is still basically making the decision 'we do not want your content here'.

So: "Every blacklisting is a content decision with as basis: 'we do not want this content (links) on our pages'". Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions", it is actually the only thing the blacklist is used for.

I believe this does not affect anyone else, but I'd like to hear some more about this. Could the ArbComm clarify how they see this Principle implemented?

Answer to Rootology

• Rootology, even if the blacklist is only used to blacklist spam links (and in the cited case there are several examples given of links which are blacklisted even when they are not (strictly) spammed), that is still in conflict with "Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions", as the content decision is that we do not want those spam links here.

• Yes, you make sense (though that would be something for community discussion for what the spam blacklist should be used, the abusefilter was to 'filter abuse', still it is widely used to 'tag' at the moment), but again, the current statement does not say that (spam is still content ..). Hence the clarification request. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Coren

• I feel this needs a further workout, though this is getting closer. I may be playing the devils advocate here (but spammers are also not strange of that tactics, see e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#Common spammer strawmen, examples in WP:GRIEF, Wikipedia:Replies to common objections#Advertisers, &c). There have been cases in the past, where a spammer is adding his links, which may or may not be reliable sources, between <ref> and </ref> marks, making them appear as references ('reference spamming'). Also, spamming a reliable source in the external links section would still be falling under the statement, even if it is just blatant spamming (see e.g. Special:Contributions/122.170.120.134, this was certainly not helpful, but it is a reliable source). Also, this now would mean that if the source is deemed unreliable (see in relation to this case Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#www.newenergytimes.com), the link still can be blacklisted. I see what the statement is meant to be getting at, but I am not sure if this is clarified enough. Maybe it should be "content and it's sources should not be enforced using the blacklist", but then I could say: "the content can still be added, you only can't use this source". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana

• I think that wording along those lines would indeed be better, though it should allow for the situations where a perfectly good, reliable source is widescale pushed in a totally inappropriate way (repeating the example of Special:Contributions/122.170.120.134, this was certainly not helpful, but it is a reliable source) can be blacklisted with the aim of stopping the abuse. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad

• That is where I think there is a problem: "... block insertion of clearly inappropriate links" is a content decision under "Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions". The statement may be too sweeping: blacklisting a link to a (practically) completely useless site after an editor has done a handful of additions (i.e. the blacklisting admin blacklists early to prevent the abuse, but there is not yet evidence of widescale abuse) is, in my view, a content decision, with the aim of stopping further abuse. If I compare that to JzG's, blacklisting lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com, that looks like a decision 'we do not want this content here, and in this way I stop it being abused', which is not significantly different (and I see this separate from the questions if he should have added it, if the pro's and con's were appropriately weighed against each other, that it maybe should have been discussed before adding, if there was significant abuse, and if there is sufficient evidence to expect significant future abuse, &c.), except that most of the links were here in references (but then, we do have 'reference spammers' as well, who e.g. put links to their company 'fact'-sheets as references next to products). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fritzpoll

This does need clarification - what is a "content decision" in the context of this Arbcom finding? All links are arguably content decisions, and with this Arbcom finding it is possible to game all link removal and efforts at blacklisting. Perhaps Arbcom needs to be more specific in its wording here - it arises from not blacklisting to prevent the use of certain material in sources. Given this isolated incident, do you really have to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Question by Rootology

Why or when would it be valid to ever use the blacklisting except in linking to spammed content, with "consensus" that it was spammed? rootology (C)(T) 15:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Beetstra: I get the language concern here, but my question is more simple and binary than that-- is there any situation where a tool designed to curb spam link abuse is allowed to be used for other purposes? I.e., if someone links what they consider WP:RS as an in-line source 5-6 times in 5-6 articles, is that spam, or a pure editorial content dispute? Versus, if someone links some page in under WP:EL 60-70 times? My concern is that in my mind something like the spamlist should only be used to for you know, actual spam, never because someone disagrees on an article's standing under WP:RS. Am I making sense? rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Question from FlyingPenguin1

Is linkspam really considered "content" (as opposed to "noise") in this context? FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• To be clear; when we refer to content we mean "content that would normally be subject to the normal editorial process". In other words, the blacklists should not be used to suppress reliable sources; promotional material, linkspam and other undesirable flotsam is not protected by that finding. — Coren ^(talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• Would it be helpful if we amended the case by motion to better reflect the intent that the blacklist is intended for spam links, not for links that are subject to other editorial disputes such as reliability? --Vassyana (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• The basic rule as I see it is that the blacklist is used to prevent abuse of project resources and block insertion of clearly inappropriate links, not as a weapon in routine editorial decision-making. I don't know that there is any need for a change to our decision in the Abd-JzG case; if there is agreement to the foregoing on a policy page, that should be sufficient. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the remaining concerns about the parameters of the blacklist are best addressed on a policy page, rather than trying to fine-tune the principle as articulated in the arbitration case. It is up to the community rather than us to ultimately establish policy in this (as in virtually any) area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Concur that this discussion is best conducted on a policy page within the community of editors. Risker (talk) 21:51, 15 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/Alastair Haines (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.

---

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Statement by Sandstein

I have recently taken arbitration enforcement action against Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as described in this AE thread (permalink). The case page instructs me to "log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision". However, the case page has been courtesy blanked by Kevin (talk · contribs).

What logging, if any, is to occur? And should the page really remain courtesy-blanked if it appears to be needed for logging and enforcement purposes?  Sandstein  05:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

What I have seen happen in the past is the blanking is undone, the logging done, and then the case re-blanked, all in separate edits (ie. three). If you explain them with sufficiently-descriptive edit summaries, people will know what's going on when they look at the edit history and know which version to look at to get the full log. Daniel (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I agree with Daniel's comment and suggested method. By using a descriptive edit summary when unblanking, adding the admin action, and then courtesy blanking again, someone will know where to look for the full version of the log. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Another (IMO simpler) method that is just as clear would be to edit the last non-blanked revision, followed by blanking. Only two edits this way, but no less clear. Both approaches serve the same purposes, however, of logging the sanction yet maintaining the page blanked. — Coren ^(talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Either of the above is fine with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per Newyorkbrad. I trust this has now been accomplished? Risker (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I suppose the above methods work, but I strongly question the wisdom of maintaining the page blanked if it is necessary for continuing enforcement and logging. --Vassyana (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Either way's good, though unblanking the main page would make it easier as well. Wizardman 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• The logging section ought to be visible on the page at all times, particularly whenever there is an active block or ban. --bainer (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per Vassyana, Wizardman and Stephen Bain.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:07, 16 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 to amend prior case: AndriyK (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.

---

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK.

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

• User:Horlo [33]

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

Horlo is a single-purpose nationalist account. This is not too unusual in eastern European matters, but Horlo is disrupting medieval history articles where he knows nothing with tendentious edits and talk page posts that do nothing but waste the time of other users who are trying to do respectable work. No exaggeration, his contributions are nothing but entering fights to push a very extreme version of Ukrainian nationalism that is at odds with the purpose of this encyclopedia:

Rus' Khaganate

Horlo is continually inserting a clean-up tag into the Featured Article Rus' Khaganate. His "argues" You cite 8 sources about East European history published by the Soviet Union! Enough said here ... Finally, you are ignoring fact: Rus does not mean Russia. Russia does not mean Rus. That is not a disagreement by me, that is fact. The article cites numerous sources that use the name interchangeably.*

• added tag as per discussion,
• please do not remove tag without improving the article
• Please read discussion - many problems are laid out there
• please see discussion
• Please see talk page and answer the questions
• Slogans do not help improve the article - PLEASE see talk
• Please either answer the questions on the talk page, or let the challenge stay

Vladimir the Great

Horlo revert wars over the name of Prince Vladimir the Great, and tries to portray use of the English name Vladimir as "Russian nationalism"perm talk page link

• m
• common name as per talk page
• as per discussion
• Please see talk page re:name
• Please see discussion

Though this is a periodic excursion for this user from his main interests in the Holodomor and the spelling of Kiev (see Talk:Kiev and Talk:Kiev/naming archives), it still causes disruption and wasted time and is clear proof that while the editor isn't interested in encyclopedia-building he is prepared to reduce the ability of others to do so.

The action I request is a motion amendment which either 1) topic-bans Horlo from medieval Rus articles (or at least from revert-warring over spelling forms) or 2) provides a remedy that will allow other administrators to place such restrictions ad hoc in future.

• NOTE: Rus and Russia are actually the same word etymologically, and although there is pressure to distinguish the two since the break-up of the Soviet Union, Horlo knows that most medieval historians writing in English don't do this (as it has been pointed out to him in the past); also, most scholarship on Kievan Rus' was written in Soviet Russia and Ukraine, and for the works likely to be cited by western historians, is as reliable as English scholarship in the same era ... to verify that check the bibliographies of recent English works like Dimnik's House of Chernigov and Janet Martin's Medieval Russia

Resp. to NYB

The AndriyK case was partly about the same behaviour, tendentious warring on the topic of Ukrainian proper names e.g. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Statement_by_party_8_.28User:Alex_Bakharev.29. No other case covers this behaviour so specifically, the EE dispute (despite its new name) being about Polish-Lithuanian and Polish-Russian disputes and involving Horlo less than the AndriyK. It's fairly common to bring newer users into older cases when they are relevant, though to me this is just a bureaucratic thing so long as the effect occurs. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Horlo

Hello, I apologize in advance for the length of this statement, but since I have suddenly found myself before the Arbitration Committee, I believe that as much information as is pertinent should come to light.

First, I am a single-purpose account. I admit that freely. I know nothing of radiation spectrometers, Namibian Soccer players, mating habits of porpoises, life cycles of Lavender, soccer rules, Klingon pain sticks, or Romanian grammar. I have contributed not at all to anything that I don't know about. I know about Ukraine, and I contribute to articles about Ukraine. I have created a few articles, often connected to Ukraine, and have asked many questions.

While I use Wikipedia for many things, when I have nothing useful to contribute, I don't. However, when I ask a question, I actually would like an answer other than "You're kidding, right?" [[34]]

I started editing Wikipedia by accident, when I was looking for information for a class that I was teaching about Ukrainian history, specifically about Kyivan Rus'. I googled Kyiv, found the WP link to Kiev, and when I tried to change the name, an editor changed it back, stating "it's same ole, same ole; every month or so a new Ukrainian language nationalist comes along trying to push views against wiki policy, then go away;but people here have had the argument dozens of times"[[35]]. That surprised me, as I had been labeled a "Ukrainian nationalist" before anybody had actually given any arguments as to why a change should not be made.

Now, I am a Ukrainian nationalist, but that's not the point here. When I took the advice of a Wikipedia administrator to start an RfC to change the name of the article from Kiev to Kyiv, one very vocal editor stated:

* Oppose* Kiev is the English word for the city. Everyone knows what Kiev is, and even for those who recognize Kyiv, it still looks strange. Generally, I hate "cultural imperialism" and I'm inclined to support native forms where there is a moral argument, but here there is no moral argument which overrides Use English. There are worse etymologies than Kiev ... e.g. Gaelic and Welsh people and words are known throughout the world by English forms. Check the interwikis for Ynys Môn (Anglesey) - almost entirely English derived despite the fact that the island's language is not and never has been English (unlike Kiev and "Russian"). See then Máel Coluim mac Cináeda ... Malcolm II in all the interwikies, why? The guy has nothing to do with English! It's just what happens, and, whether "imperialistic" (as its called on at sevceral points on this page) or not, it is independent of wiki policy. At least Celtic languages are entirely separate from English, whereas standard Russian and standard Ukrainian are very similar varieties, or as one person once put it, recently conceived standardizations at two separate points on the "Eastern Slavic" dialect continuum (even though Russians and Ukrainians are now supposed to be coherently separate peoples, they still haven't, for instance, worked out who Rusyns are). Besides that, Kiev is a predominantly Russophone city in any case, and the rise of Kyiv as an English spelling is a response to the corrupt Ukrainian government's internal and international policy of Ukrainization in the attempt to give a semi-convincing national identity across its borders to what is in all fairness a fairly historically arbitrary SSR created recently as a concept and extended by gifts in the Soviet period. In reality it's a "bilingual", or more accurately, diglossic land with little pre-WWI historical precedent as a state much of whose southern territory was taken by "Eastern Slavs" (formerly everyone, including them, just called them "Russians") from Turkic peoples in recent centuries. There is no moral argument for the Kyiv spelling rather than the neutral, English Kiev. The whole controversy here is just emblematic of immature, eastern European ideologically separatistic fanaticism; never seen any Germans complain about the naming of Cologne, spelled after those imperialist standardized Frenchies, or Luxemburgers complain about Luxembourg rather than Lëtzebuerg or Luxemburg. No, you only get that when you cross the Oder in to Eastern Europe. Few English-speakers know that there is a one vowel difference between how some Russians say the name of the city and the way some Ukrainians say the name. They certainly don't know that "Kiev" is closer to the standardized "Russian" way than the standardized "Ukrainian" way until Ukrainian nationalists tell them. Hey, most English-speaking Glaswegians call their city Glez-ga, not Glasgow, and despite the fact that there's more difference between Glez-ga and Glasgow than Kyiv and Kiyev, I've never heard anyone complain about the spelling, let alone advocate that English adopt the standardized Gaelic spelling Glaschu. So not only is Kyiv not English, it shouldn't become English, and wikipedia should not be acting as an extension of the Ukrainian government's immoral and unhistorical nationalistic language policy. Kiev is the spelling everyone knows. Having said that, there is precedent for ignoring English use and slavishly following the discriminatory dictates of Ukrainian government on wikipedia. E.g. the Russian-speaking city of Kharkov, for instance, already has the less common (in English) and Ukrainianized spelling Kharkiv, but this was wrong and Kiev anyways is a much more famous city than Kharkov in the English-speaking world. The wiki article should therefore remain at this location until Kyiv or any other name does overwhelmingly predominate in actual use in the English language; and for what it's worth, the English-speaking organizations who have adopted the spelling Kyiv in print have not taught their staff to change their pronunciation, since you always here KEE-eff/Kee-EFF whether they've spelled it Kiev or Kyiv. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

During that same discussion, I was accused of Sockpuppetry, "Hello Horlo's sockpuppet with an anonymous Toronto IP. Reginmund 05:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)".

To be honest, I have been called worse by better, so I didn't really care. Unfortunately, I think that this established the relationship between Deacon of Pndapetzim and me. As much as we try to deny it, we cannot leave emotions out of Wikipedia. We're all human - that's why words like "disruption" still find their way into this case. It's very difficult to accept that we may not be correct. I think that sadly Deacon of Pndapetzim has not been able to leave that discussion.

By the way, what would lead Deacon of Pndapetzim to suspect that I am a man? Why always use "he"?

Now, with respects to my more recent edits, I believe that my statements have been misinterpreted. I have never "tried to portray use of the English name Vladimir as "Russian nationalism". (please note the incorrect use of quotation marks in "the English name Vladimir"):

First, neither Volodymyr nor Vladimir are English words. They are both translations into English.

Second, here is the actual discussion/reparte (again, I apologize for the length of the citation, but I think it is important that everything be out here, without the onus being on the ArbCom members to go and look for information):

"The sentence "Volodymyr Svyatoslavych the Great, often mistakenly spelled Vladimir" is incorrect as "Volodymyr" being a modern Ukrainian spelling is no more correct than "Vladimir" (modern Russian spelling). The old East Slavic was either "Володимеръ"(according to the Hypatian codex) or "Володимѣръ"(Vasmer). Note the different vowels in the two last syllables. The reason of this is that the root "mer" derives from the gothic "-mērs"("great") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.47.185.171 (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, didn't notice this, thanks - that were edits by an anonymous Ukrainian nationalist (note the typical Kiev to Kyiv change). Reverted. --Illythr (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC) But did you notice that the preceding statement was by an anonymous Russian nationalist (check the whois, and this is the only contribution, even left unsigned)? Horlo (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC) "

The discussion continued: "Indeed, the IP is Russian, but how did you determine that this person is a nationalist? --Illythr (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Hello, the same way that you had determined that the previous change had been made by a Ukrainian nationalist. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) While changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" arbitrarily is a good indication of an Ukrainian nationalist at work (because the article's name is currently Kiev, despite the dogged, incessant attempts by the nationalists to rename it for six freaking years), a reversion of this is not an indication of anything, other than, perhaps, due vigilance (I failed to notice the change, for instance). --Illythr (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Excuse me? So what you're saying is that you have no arguments here. Do you have any others? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Er, what? --Illythr (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC) "while changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" arbitrarily is a good indication of a Ukrainian nationalist at work". That's what. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Ah. Well, everyone I saw going about doing this in Wikipedia articles, where the name "Kiev" is entirely noncontroversial (pre-1991) has invariably turned out to be one. Here it's even more obvious, due to the "often mistakenly spelled" thingy. Compare - "Moskva, often mistakenly spelled as Moscow, is the capital of Russia..." However, this branch of the discussion is entirely irrelevant to the article. If you find my original statement offensive, just say so and I will delete it. --Illythr (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Well, everyone I saw going and changing it back has been one, too. Horlo (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC) I see. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. --Illythr (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)"

I apologize for the long quote, but I think it is important that it is clear exactly how I call "Vladimir" Russian nationalism. Here's how: I don't.

Now, I still can't see any explanation of how I "push a very extreme version of Ukrainian nationalism that is at odds with the purpose of this encyclopedia".

This brings us back to my first edits - I am called names. I am accused of owning all kinds of puppets (meat and sock). The fact that I don't contribute about things unknown to me is mocked. Again, name calling is not important, so I ignore it.

What I actually find most disturbing in this accusation is words placed in my mouth, such as in the reply to NewYorkBrad, "Horlo knows that most medieval historians writing in English don't do this" Excuse me? Pardon? How does Horlo know this?

Why is this case before the Arbitration Committee?

This is a pattern of behaviour that I have come to expect from some editors. If one is to be judged by one's enemies,: [[36]]

I can honestly say: I have never done anything in bad faith; I have never gone against consensus when it has been shown that consensus is against me; I have always questioned everything.

Unfortunately, it seems that one editor has a problem enough with my edits to take them to the highest court in Wikipedia. This statement, is an example: "Horlo revert wars" while on a talk page the same editor states "The editor is rude sometimes, but not enough that he'd get blocked for it, and doesn't spend enough time on wiki to edit-war over 3RR regularly." [[37]] If I don't even spend enough time on wiki, why am I being discussed here?

Finally, the thing that angers me most is the assumption by the accuser that "while the editor isn't interested in encyclopedia-building he is prepared to reduce the ability of others to do so." Why does Deacon of Pndapetzim presume to say that I am not interested in encyclopedia-building? Have I not started articles? Have I not improved articles? Is not questioning the very foundation of objective study? Is the fact that Deacon of Pndapetzim is a medieval doctoral student and may have pre-concieved notions (that I challenged) about Rus', Ukraine, and Kyiv enough to bring a case here?

I submit that the "clear proof" offeded by Deacon of Pndapetzim against me isn't so "clear" at all. I question, I question repeatedly. If there are no satisfactory answers, I continue to question. We should be concerned with seeking answers, rather than stopping people from questioning.

Unfortunately I cannot see anything in this Arbitration Request besides vindictiveness. "it still causes disruption and wasted time".

Finally, a WP administrator made changes on the Volodymyr the Great page which were an agreeable compromise, but were undone by Deacon of Pndapetzim [[38]]. Perhaps it is not I who is not "interested in encyclopedia-building"

I apologize once again for the length of the reply. But sometimes it takes a while to say what you need to say.

Thank you, Horlo (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other username

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm afraid I'm a bit lost here. Is Horlo a new username for one of the parties to the AndriyK case? If not, I don't see how any remedy against Horlo could be reached by amending our decision in that case, which was decided two years before Horlo started editing (and long before any of the present arbitrators joined the committee, and before several of the current arbitrators including me even started editing). Wouldn't the appropriate course here be a request for discretionary sanctions under the Eastern European disputes decision or a related decision, if applicable and if the appropriate warnings have been given, or alternatively an ANI posting or an earlier stage in DR? I'm not sure how direct intervention by this Committee at this stage would be the best course, through an amendment of the four-year-old case or otherwise. Clarification would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll comment further after we have Horlo's statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I still think that amending this four-year-old decision is not an appropriate way of addressing any issues involving Horlo. If necessary, please pursue any other appropriate form of dispute resolution. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with NYB's comments. Additionally, I see no reason that a topic ban cannot be community imposed, whether by an individual administrator (subject to normal review) or by way of community discussion. --Vassyana (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per Brad. Unless Horlo is a party to the case, there is nothing to amend and this should be dealt with by the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:22, 13 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 to amend prior case: Digwuren (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:

• I don't think that this relatively small change would affect any editors (yet)

Statement by Piotrus

There is a curious and I think unhelpful difference between the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#General_restriction and the Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions which have replaced it. The sanction allow imposing sanctions on editors who "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". The general restriction used to impose sanction for "make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith." The difference is important, as the new discretionary sanctions don't even mention personal attacks attacks and uncivility, and mention good faith in an unclear fashion later. While I think many would argue that this is covered by "expected standards of behavior", I'd nonetheless ask for a small clarification, i.e. amending the discretionary sanctions to clearly state that editors can be sanctions for (gross, repeated, etc.) violations of CIV, NPA and AGF (alternativily, we could clarify that CIV, NPA and AGF are not "expected standards of behavior" - athough I certainly hope this will not be the case). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other username

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm not really sure where the confusion is coming in. Is there really a dispute over whether conduct policies constitute expected behavior? --Vassyana (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Civility is part of behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Vassyana and Rlevse. Having said that, I wouldn't mind adding a few words to the remedy currently in effect if anyone anticipates any genuine dispute if and when the sanctions have to be invoked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I would have thought it fairly clear that those were what "expected behavior" meant, but if you wish to suggest a wording that removes doubt I'd be receptive to the tweak. — Coren ^(talk) 09:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with above, if a tweak is needed to make it clearer that can be done though. Wizardman 01:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• In my opinion making the wording too detailed gives more reason for people to argue not less, so I think the more general wording used now is better. The administrators should be enforcing sanctions against users that breaks any policy and causes the article to be an hostile editting environment. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:06, 20 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.