Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct		21 October 2024	4/3/2
Marine 69-71	Motions	26 October 2024	0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area		6 November 2024	0/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

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

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

Giovanni33

Initiated by Ultramarine (talk) at 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ultramarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Giovanni33 is already subject to Arbitration restrictions.[2] As the issue now is deliberate large scale use of sockpuppets to avoid these restrictions, among other policy violations, I see mediation and other dispute resolutions as pointless. Considering the far more serious nature of current issues a new review of Giovanni33 seems appropriate. This case is also relevant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:William M. Connolley. One of William M. Connolley's blocks was against one of the sockpuppets (Supergreenred) described below and the sockpuppets main interest have been the article he protected in large part due to their edit warring.Ultramarine (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ultramarine

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Giovanni33 may have the longest block log in Wikipedia.[3] He is known to have used several sockpuppets.[4] He is currently under an Arbitration Remedy restriction of 1R/week which he has violated several times.[5] Based on only a small part of the evidence presented below, he was blocked indefinitely for using sockpuppets two weeks ago but some doubt remained and he was unblocked.[6][7] Much additional evidence and several new sockpuppets as stated below now clearly demonstrates Giovanni33's abuse of sockpuppets and his unfortunately rather successful systematic breaking of Wikipedia policies. As such Giovanni33 is harmful to Wikipedia.

All of the following accounts and IPs come from the same geographic area as Giovanni33 who is located in San Francisco.[8][9] They are essentially SPA with few edits. They edit a very narrow range of related articles that Giovanni33 is interested in. Such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (edited by all), State terrorism, Terrorism, William Blum, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Guatemalan Civil War, and 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. By using these accounts and IPs Giovanni33 systematically violates his 1R/week restriction as well as other aspects of WP:SOCKS by using them in votes and in talk page discussions in order to give a false impression of support.

Rafaelsfingers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edits from the same same geographic area as Giovanni33.[10] SPA with few edits reverting to Giovanni33 earlier versions and repeating his arguments. Examples: Here Rafaelsfingers reverts to Giovanni33's version in the US state terrorism article.[11] Here Rafaelsfingers reverts to Giovanni33's exact version in the Guatemalan Civil War article. Despite that there had been 13 intermediate different versions by different editors having opposing views in between. [12] In addition to violating 1R/week, also violates WP:SOCK by voting at the same time as Giovanni33 in an AfD regarding the US state terrorism.[13] When Rafaelsfingers was blocked it was Giovanni33 pleaded for unblocking on Rafaelsingers own talk page. Not Rafaelsingers until an administrator asked for this.[14]

Supergreenred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edits from the same geographic area Giovanni33.[15] SPA with few edits reverting to Giovanni33 earlier versions and repeating his arguments. Examples: Here Supergreenred reverts to Rafaelsfingers's (another sockpuppet, see above) exact version in the US state terrorism article.[16] Here Supergreenred reverts to an IP in the same geographic area as Giovanni33 in the William Blum article.[17] Here Giovanni33 reverts to Supergreenred's exact version in the William Blum article:[18]

Giovanni33 has a long dispute with user:John Smith.[19] Here Supergreenred deletes a talk page edit by John Smith stating "John Smith is not welcome here."[20] Strange reaction by an editor with supposedly only a dozen edits at this time and who had never encountered John Smith before. But Giovanni33 has a long history of deleting John Smith's edits.[21][22][23]

Linguistic similarities. Supergreenred: "Allow time for discussion and consensus before mass deletions."[24] "Allow consensus for what to properly remove first."[25] Giovanni33: "Allow for editors imput and consensus first please."[26] "Please allow for consensus before re-adding back."[27] Supergreenred: "you are cherry picking only selective facts to paint a POV picture."[28] Giovanni33: "You are cherry picking what information to include and exclude on the basis of POV."[29] Supergreenred stating "remove" instead of "removed": "Source calls him a historian, but you remove that."[30] Giovanni33 stating "remove" instead of "removed": "you remove "historian' despite what the sources say."[31]

DrGabriela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edits from the same geographic area Giovanni33.[32] SPA with few edits reverting to Giovanni33 earlier versions and repeating his arguments. Examples: Here DrGabriela reverts to Giovanni's exaxt version in the Chuch Committe article:[33]. Here Giovanni33 reverts to DrGabriela's version in the State terrorism article. [34] Here DrGabriela reverts to Giovanni33's version in the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état article.[35] Here Giovanni33 reverts to the same paragraph text as DrGabriela in the Terrorism article.[36][37] In addition to violating 1R/week, also violates WP:SOCK by voting at the same time as Giovanni33 in an AfD regarding the US state terrorism.[38]

76.102.72.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from the same geographic area as Giovanni33. Used to revert to Giovanni33's preferred version. Examples: Here reverts to Giovanni33's exact version in the William Blum article.[39] Here Giovanni33 reverts to this IP in the US state terrorism article.[40]

76.126.64.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from the same area as Giovanni33. Used to revert to Giovanni33's preferred version. Examples: Here makes similar reverts using the same arguments as Giovanni33 in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article.[41][42][43] Here Giovanni33 reverts to this IP's exact version on the US state terrorism article.[44]

67.188.208.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from the same area as Giovanni33. Used to revert to Giovanni33's preferred version. Examples: Here reverts to Giovanni33 exact version in the US state terrorism article.[45]. Blocked for violating the the 3RR rule.[46] This not including Giovanni33's reverts.

67.180.59.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP from the same area as Giovanni33. Has made a single edit in Wikipedia which like Giovanni33 a few days earlier removed an entire section from the US state terrorism article.[47][48]

This does not include the much older confirmed sockpuppets such as User:BelindaGong, User:Professor33, User:NeoOne, and User:CleanSocks as well as the many older suspected sockpuppets and IPs coming from the same geographic area as Giovanni33.[49]

AnnH made this comment on the first Checkuser which still applies "All in all, there is a very disturbing pattern of new users with no prior history at Wikipedia arriving and coming to all the pages he edits, agreeing with him on the talk page, reverting to his version, claiming consensus where none exists, and following him to other articles and voting for whatever he votes for."[50]

Response to Merzbow

Yet more linguistic and behavorial evidence in addition to that already given clearly showing the sockpuppetry.

Responses to Relata refero and Bigtimepeace

The SevenOfDiamonds case clearly shows that the Arbitratrion Committee has the ability to judge sockpuppetry.[51] The Mantanmoreland case did in fact lead to several remedies against this user and more generally.[52]. Before making any claims regarding what the Arbitration Committee found, please note that "the key statement is emphasised by italics. This finding of fact should not be mis-cited or used (deliberately or otherwise) by any user to signify other than is clearly stated." See: [53]

A situation where Wikipedia cannot act if checkuser does not show identical internet providers seems very harmful. That would mean that users could avoid all restrictions simply by using different providers. Especially if using wireless providers, as in this case, which are difficult to locate. Much new evidence has been added by me and Merzbow. The Arbcom is needed in this case where Giovanni33 by using such less obvious methods for a long time has managed to systematically violate Wikipedia policies and create disruption. He and his methods are harmful to Wikipedia.

Statement by Merzbow

It is hard to read through the contributions of those other accounts and not see a startling similarity in language, subject interest, and POV to Giovanni33. Here is one telling example, relating to the DrGabriela account:

• Giovanni33: 2008-04-23T19:22:20 - "...This op ed piece is not accurate, creates a straw man (who ever claims that the US is to be blamed for ALL the deaths?). Nonsense! ..."

• DrGabriela: 2008-04-21T01:47:08 - "Can you show me where it says the US is responsible for ALL the deaths? Perhaps I missed it."

This is just with 15 minutes of looking, and at just the DrGabriela account. Giovanni33, I think you've been busted. I think the Arbs need to take this case and weigh the network evidence (which is mostly not available to us), in additional to the behavioral evidence (which is all public and, as we've seen in Ultra's and my statements so far, very concerning).

- Merzbow (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting "coincidence":

On 4/18, DrGabrielia suggests adding to the "Allegations..." article information from a book by Lopez and Stohl. To wit:

• DrGabrielia: 2008-04-18T01:58:25 - "I have only put back the Atomic Bombings of Japan. This is important information to the topic here and of State Terrorism. In fact, many scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism, that we know call "state terrorism" came about within the global system of international relations as a result of changes that took place following World War ll... <trimmed, see diff - Merzbow> ...The argument is discussed for exmample by Prof. Micahel Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988. I have read quite a bit about State Terrorism this section looks to be well done. I think it can be expanded a bit, but I know the topic is that of the US role in State Terrorism."

On 4/23, Giovanni33 suggests in talk adding a paragraph to the article phrased almost exactly like DrGabrielia's earlier post:

• Giovanni33: 2008-04-23T23:13:22 - "I also found this fitting for the section, which I also think is close enough to these Bombings, and a central part of the State Terrorism analysis: "Some scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism... <trimmed, see diff - Merzbow> ... The argument is discussed by Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988."" I think it adds nicely to the section, although its more about State Terrorism per se than this particular act of it, it does cite it as an act, having ramifications for future state behavior that is described as state terrorism within foreign policy. So its quite relevant."

Shortly thereafter he adds it to the article here. Note the similar language and concerns expressed in the two follow-ons to the proposed material (i.e. both express slight concerns the material isn't specific to the US role in state terrorism).

(For further amusement I could list the half-dozen ways Giovanni33 and Dr.Gabriela have begun some of their posts with variations on the phrase "I agree with <the other account>", but I'll save that for later...)

Because this is not an Evidence page, I will present no more, but this should clearly be enough for the Arbs to make a judgment as to whether sufficient evidence does in fact exist to take the case. - Merzbow (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I lied. One more extremely telling piece of evidence:

• "paint a POV picture": Rafaelsfingers: [54], Supergreenred: [55] - Google shows no other usage of this peculiar phrase.

- Merzbow (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Relata refero

Below Relata says that "Focusing on sockpuppetry, which the ArbCom has established is unprovable for long-term established editors in the absence of checkuser evidence, is pointless", which is simply not the case. He must not be familiar with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds#NuclearUmpf, in which SevenOfDiamonds was banned not on network evidence, but on behavioral evidence much like the above (aside from there being confirmation in both cases the accounts in question were from the same geographical area). In cases where the community is conflicted (as here, there are a number of admins who agreed with Jehochman's block before he chose to unblock), we need ArbCom. - Merzbow (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to BTP

I think the requirements you've laid out for arbitration intervention have in fact already been met. You seem skeptical of the evidence, and are an admin. Jehochman seemed to unblock quite reluctantly. Bozmo and WMC seem quite convinced. - Merzbow (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Relata refero

• As I explain to Jehochman [here, I don't see any prima facie case for sockpuppetry in (a) holding the same opinion and (b) being from a particular fairly large geographical area, when (a) and (b) are in fact closely correlated in the real world. More to the point, if checkusers can not pin this down, I don't think that ArbCom needs to go out of the normal process: let SSP do its job.

• If there are separate problems with disruptive editing, then those should be addressed separately. Focusing on sockpuppetry, which the ArbCom has established is unprovable for long-term established editors in the absence of checkuser evidence, is pointless. In particular, the above arguments, which refer to (a) a book frequently cited in the literature as seminal to the debate that the disputed article supposedly suggests and (b) responding to an identical argument by stating the obvious response, are not particularly helpful.

• While these articles are problematic, I urge a broader focus on the articles in general, or on G33's disruptive editing overall. This is counterproductive and a waste of time. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Merzbow: I see your 7ofDiamonds and raise you Mantanmoreland. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Giovanni33

Note Ultramarine’s statement under the requirement of utilizing other means of dispute resolution before coming to Arbcom: he states that it’s “pointless.” The truth is that the reason it’s pointless is because this matter has already been looked at by various admins, and the appropriate action has already been taken. There has been nothing new since. Ultramarine’s stop here at arbcom is simply his latest stop in board shopping on an issue that has already been looked at and dealt with, correctly. Therefore, this is a frivolous case. If there was something new the very competent admins on top of the situation would be the ones to go to. There is no debate/controversy among admins as to the solution that was implemented already that would require Arbcom to waste their time dealing with it.

The relevant information about this already settled matter can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Rafaelsfingers

Because upon first appearances the evidence looks quite convincing it led an admin to initiate blocks. However, upon closer inspection of the actual evidence, minus all the smoke and mirrors, assuming good faith—and after consulting with other admins who are familiar, a remedy was found and taken.

The blocking admin states: “Upon discussion with several administrators who know Giovanni33's style, I have sufficient doubts that I have unblocked.” An admin who I trust and had asked to look into this matter via e-mail informed me it was just a case of "mistaken identity." Although I was still concerned and suggested that maybe I should not edit these article anymore for a while, until these other accounts go away-- he said there was no need to avoid the articles just stick to strictly to my arbcom probation. None of my editing has been anything other than productive with these articles.

About the other account alleged to be my socket-puppet, the blocking admin writes: “I have agreed to unblock User:Rafaelsfingers on condition that they become a member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, and use only one account. Further trouble without signs of progress should result in a speedy reblocking.”

After these users were warned about the appearance of their editing, and asked to change that, they have. They have been productive editors, as well. So the only real problem here is the continued bad faith mud slinging by ideological opponents who seem to think Wikipedia is more a battlefield to push a POV than a collaborative project to build a reputable encylopedia. Notice the continued attempts to build this case by Ultramarine: [56] And: [57]

• The Evidence

Now, as to the evidence, although its already been discussed and settled, I’ll bring up just a few critical points that cast reasonable doubt. I called it smoke and mirrors, and in many this is magic show (a misuse of magic!), including the old “pick a card’ trick.

For instance, quotes are selectively taken out of the talk page discussion about the same issue to point to near identical statements to prove the allegations of socket-puppetry. Yet, here is the trick: if you look at the context of the discussion of all editors talking about it, every single one can be found making the same comment! This is the classic fallacy of cherry picking, and the trick is exposed one you see that the full deck of cards are all the same!

For example from the talk page in question:

“…not all of the deaths can be blamed on the US.”--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

“That source says the U.S. initiated it, not that it was solely responsible for all of it….”BernardL (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

“You are arguing that everyone thinks that the US was responsible for all the deaths…” Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 24 April 200

“…nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths…. BernardL (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So in this context, its not surprising that we find the other two editors involved, myself and Dr.Gabriela making the same statements, addressting the straw man fallacy being advanced by Ultramarine. In fact Dr.Gabriela has to make the statement twice, and only raises it to all caps, after he ignores her point.

Also, keep in mind that its not uncommon for one editor to copy another if the same issue/argument remains side-stepped. Ultramarine is a classic case of WP:TE, WP:OWN, and Wiki-lawyering. So often times many editors must repeat themselves, and a convenient quick way to do that is to copy and past what other editors have already said. For instance, notice this:

“Now Ultramarine thinks this little quip from Ferguson is so important that it should go into several articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths. He has inserted the same quote in this civil war article, in Foreign Policy of the United States, in 1954 Guatemalan Coup D'etat, had formerly inserted it into Allegations of States Terrorism Committed by the United States, and Church Committee and who knows where else. The Polity Data information is inserted in pretty much the same places too!”BernardL (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And here is my post:

“It certainly is not so important that it should go into several articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths. Since there is no consensus for this material I will remove it, unless some valid arguments are made, or consensus changes. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)”

Does this make me a socket-puppet of BernardL? Of course not. The same goes for my using references first provided by Dr.Gabriela. I looked up the source and then used the references in other articles. Yes, I admit using these quality reliable sources, which I verified (as I always do) which were brought to my attention first by her posts. If they are good and needed in other article, then I use it. This is evidence of borrowing, not socket-puppetry. I also point out she has been editing since last year, and in an area that I never edit in. She seems to have some medical knowledge, for example. I'm not a doctor.

To continue, I call this a magic show because it does distorts reality—not just through omission and removing context, but also of due to fabrication, too.

For instance, it is claimed that it’s a strange coincidence that I said what the other editor said, almost exact. But, if you looked at what I really wrote (and not what Ultramarine claims I did), one can see that I was indeed quoting the other editor! Ultramarine convenient leaves that out, while pretending it’s a mystery. What I really wrote was: "For instance, as the other editor pointed out, you remove "historian' despite what the sources say." [58] I was clearly referencing the other editors statement, so the outcome is quite expected, not strange as if I had come up with it on my own. Yet, Ultramarine conveniently misquotes me by removing the relevant wording. And, as we all know the term cherry picking a well-known logical fallacy and the term is employed frequently.

So has there been some mimicry among editors dealing with Ultramarine? Yes. Also, I do confess that some of the editors made me feel a little uncomfortable and I did raise the issue via e-mail to another editor that the appearances of socket-puppetry was a concern when I first noticed what could look suspicious, which I think can be provided, if needed, as evidence of my innocence. However, it should be pointed out all these allegations rest on only appearances which can be explained by good faith alternative explanations. References to my ancient past (by wiki-standards) should not be relevant. I was given a blank slate, and have adhered to all the rules in good standing. I point out that Ultramarine has gone through arbitration for “sterile edit warring” yet continues to engage in that behavior (but this is cause for a separate arbcom case).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:B#Giovanni33: I will also point out that Ultramaine’s false claims of socket-puppetry have recently extended to accusing established editors who he was edit warring with, and falsely claimed they were all new accounts to an admin. This was easily shown to be false, of course. Here are these “new” accounts: Editing since 2005 with thousands of edits:29 May 2005 Dr.Gabriela has edited since July of 2007:[59], and this editor since May 2006:[60]. Also, I just discovered this early edit by Dr.Gabriela that appears to be in Tagalog:[61] consistent with their edits on Philippine articles. Again, this not related to any of my edits, and I do not speak Tagalog.

About the locations, my understanding is that this is within an area of 50 miles? I would not call that close, and I have had a few edit conflicts when attempting to leave message on the talk page at the same time as they have. As far as sharing a similar POV, this is not out of the ordinary for the SF Bay Area. This is very densely populated area that is has one of the highest concentration of progressives. Also, there is now nothing disruptive occurring with these accounts being closely watched. They are contributing the the project in a positive manner, as I am. This is more than can be said of Ultramarine. For all I know Ultra is a CIA agent working through Freedom House and has targeted me for elimination by seeding various other accounts within proximity to create the set-up of an appearance of socket-puppetry. But I am no conspiracy theorist, although it's no coincidence that WP's right wing has wanted me banned for years now. Likewise, the conspiracy that I am master-minding all this should be also be dismissed in absence of any hard evidence. Instead, I choose to take the common sense middle ground taken by other admins already: assume good faith, give appropriate warnings with conditional unblocking and keep monitoring. That is what was done with these other accounts, and it seems to be working. Ultra needs to stop fishing and "battling" in WP.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to WMC

WMC seems to have invoked a new policy that I never heard of before: talking too much. While I do confess to being long winded at times, I stay on topic and focus my longer posts to strictly matters of article content improvement. This is positive, not negative, to the project. When there is dispute, the solution is to discuss it. The section the WMC cites as an example of my talking too much is ironic. Take a look at it:[62] There you will see that I had only left one sentence consisting of a mere 12 words. Compare this to Ultramarine's some 23 sentences and 318 words. But in WMC's view, its me who should be kicked out, now due to being too wordy? Again, I do not claim to be generally short on words, however, when I am short on words, its because its not directly related to article content as this example proves. Any review of my edits over many articles will show my contributions to the project have been genuine and worthy, and that my interaction with editors of all political stripes have all been focused on improving content and in adherence to WP policies. Claims of disruption are untrue.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Biophys

The CIA remark was meant to be tongue-in-cheek; the fact that there is no proof was the point of the rhetorical remark I was trying to make. I stated I am no conspiracy theorist and likened such a conspiratorial view (equally plausible given a proclivity for speculation without hard evidence) to the equally bad faith allegations that I'm behind an elaborate army of socket-puppets over a wide ranging area. My point was to ridicule both these baseless views (both are in effect attacks) in favor of the common sense middle ground road that assumes good faith and looks at actual disruptive behavior, i.e. the solution that has already been adopted by admins reviewing this situation. I'm sorry you misunderstood my point.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Bigtimepeace

It would be nice if the litigiousness surrounding the Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States article (from both sides) could be put to an end. Much of what has been brought up by Ultramarine has already been addressed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers. If the situation needs to be re-examined, the place to do it is at WP:SSP. This is a sockpuppet issue and does not need ArbCom's involvement. User:Jehochman indef blocked Giovanni but then undid the block upon further consideration. There was not much discussion about either action or discord among admins over the issue, so there is no need for ArbCom to step in and this can proceed as a normal sock case if necessary (this is in direct contrast to the SevenOfDiamonds case, referenced by Merzbow, where there was admin disagreement about how to proceed). If the issue is problematic editing by Giovanni33, we already have the William M. Connolley case below (opened by the other side of this dispute) which would allow the Arbs to examine the behavior of all who are editing on this article. That seems to be on the road to rejection though. I urge the committee to reject this case as well and refer the complainants over to the board for suspected sock puppets.

Ultramarine, Merzbow, and others who seek to gather evidence might refer to the Mantanmoreland case mentioned by Relata refero. The evidence here was quite persuasive to many but still did not result in the block of a user who had been caught socking before, as has Giovanni. The reason that the evidence was so persuasive though was that the investigators went into it looking for evidence that would suggest sockpuppetry or exonerate the user in question. Anyone who wants to seriously investigate the accusations against Giovanni cannot simply pick out those diffs which are most suspicious. Some of the techniques used in the Mantanmoreland case might be useful here, but again in my opinion it's not necessary to run the whole thing through ArbCom.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To Merzbow

As it stands now there is not a fundamental disagreement between admins such that a standard sockpuppet case cannot proceed. Again to give another example aside from the SevenofDiamonds case, in the Giovanni33-John Smith's case (which was only tangentially about sockpuppetry), Giovanni had originally been indef blocked by an admin but one or more other admins had objected. An alternative remedy could not be crafted, and Giovanni and another party ended up in arbitration. In this case all I (the skeptical admin) am saying is that a proper sockpuppet case has not been made yet. I'm skeptical (but willing to be persuaded) inasmuch as very little evidence has been presented and when I cursorily compared Giovanni's writing style to those of a couple of the supposed sock accounts awhile back they did not seem that similar to me. I'd like to see things like time-stamp analysis, an effort to look for possibly exculpatory evidence, and openness to the possibility that one or more but not all of the accounts are sockpuppets, etc.—so far the evidence is fairly cherry picked, and the most damning piece (from Merzbow, "paint a POV picture") suggests socking between two accounts but does not connect them to Giovanni. No one has explained why this case cannot proceed over at WP:SSP. The only exception I think would be if the committee accepts the William M. Connolley case below, in which case it would probably make sense to roll the sock evidence into that case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley (talk)

I'd rather you took this as part of the "WMC" case. But if not... well, G33 doesn't belong here, he belongs on usenet [63]. He talks endlessly and this is disruptive (he can't even count to 500, but then neither can Ultramarine :-(). He is a net negative to the project and yet we can't quite bring ourselves to throw him out permanently, despite the socks. Bozmo has suggested dealing with the socks via ANI [64] but... it hasn't worked yet. He and his socks need to be dealt with, by arbcomm or someone else William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Biophys

I do not know much about User:Giovanni33, but he just said the following: "For all I know Ultra is a CIA agent working through Freedom House and has targeted me...". He did not provide any proof. This is clearly a personal attack. This is also related to William M. Connolley case. As I commented previously, the Connolley case has no any merit except these allegations made by Travb and endorsed by Giovanni33. This is basically a Giovanni33-Connolley case. Let's resolve it. This is over the top.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I think the sock/meat puppetry is a side issue. At least some of the accounts appear to have been colluding for purposes contrary to Wikipedia's, but they're definitely on notice now, so I don't expect they'll be given many more chances before long term blocks are applied. This case should become part of the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States circus. Something needs to be done about the tendentious editing and endless conflicts there. The article seems to be a large coatrack for anyone to hang their opinions upon. If a preponderance of sources establish that there have been incidents of state terrorism, remove "Allegations of" from the title. Otherwise, apply neutral point of view and call it something like "Paramilitary actions supported by the United States" or "Covert military actions of the United States". Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Accept. Kirill ^(prof) 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Editor behaviour only, no content issues, and that includes article titles. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Ulster Defence Regiment

Initiated by GDD1000 (talk) at 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• GDD1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• Domer48

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ulster_Defence_Regiment
• Link 2

Statement by GDD1000

I have been trying to edit the article as I feel that it contained a bias towards collusion in the regiment without other information which reflected the true status of a British Army unit and its successes and honour. I feel that other editors who have a conflict of interest are attempting to prevent the inclusion of information which shows the regiment in a positive light. Over three weeks of negotiation have taken place with little progress and now the deletion of edits by the third party editor. In my opinion Wikipedia guidelines and policy are being given spuriously as reasons for the removal of information and that proper consideration is not being given with regards to good faith, particularly as I am a recent member with little experience. I am ceasing editing now until a decision can be made if you accept my request for arbitration.

Statement by Angus McLellan

The locus of the dispute appears to fall within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and can be addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. I do not prejudge the matter, with which I am not yet familiar, but only wish to note that no further arbitration committee action is necessary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

Just a quick note to agree with Angusmclellan that this falls within the scope of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles and can be addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. The issues which appear to be involved — edit-warring and allegations of POV-pushing — were central to that case and can be addressed through its remedies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Request reformatted, notification confirmation diffs added. Anthøny 18:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• Decline. As stated above, this article falls squarely within The Troubles, which allows administrators to use discretionary sanctions against disruption. Also, the dispute resolution at present appears to be confined to the article talk page; if this does not resolve disputes, then the opinions of more editors can be sought through a request for comments or on the reliable sources noticeboard etc. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Sam's right. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per Sam. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, per Sam. --bainer (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

---

User:SaltyBoatr

Initiated by Yaf (talk) at 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Anastrophe. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fluzwup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LWF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SaltyBoatr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SMP0328. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [65]
• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]
• [70]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk page discussions, [71], [72], [73],[74]
• WP:Third Opinion No. 1
• WP:Third Opinion No. 2
• RfC No. 1
• Wikiproject RfC No. 2
• vote for consensus; please answer 'yes' or 'no' | Consensus survey
• Mediation Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Talk: Mediation Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Two mediations, attempting to resolve this growing dispute, have ended unsuccessfully, with no resolution:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Hunting weapon

Statement by Yaf

This scope of the dispute involves a continuing and growing issue arising with editing all gun-related political articles on Wikipedia. The primary articles affected include:

• Gun politics
• Gun politics in the United States
• Hunting weapon
• Militia
• Militia (United States)
• Right to bear arms
• Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
• plus several other articles to a lesser extent.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article has been locked indefinitely as of 18:35, 4 March 2008. Other articles (mentioned above) have likewise been repeatedly locked and re-locked, primarily though one editor's gaming of the system, typically instigating an edit war with the community, then requesting immediate protection of the article, all while not actually contributing much in the way of actual content, preferring instead to discuss minutiae on the talk page continuously or to mediate through asking continuous questions and continuously moving the goal posts regarding what the perceived issue is.

Examples of SaltyBoatr “gaming the system”:

Second Amendment to the United States Constititution:

• 17:42, 4 March 2008
• 18:17, 4 March 2008
• 18:23, 4 March 2008 (request of page protection)

Right to bear arms:

• 17:33, 17 April 2008
• 17:40, 17 April 2008
• 17:49, 17 April 2008
• 18:45, 17 April 2008
• 17:51, 17 April 2008 (request of page protection)

Gun politics in the United States:

• 17:43, 9 April 2008
• 17:44, 9 April 2008 (request of page protection)
• 19:31, 9 April 2008
• 19:49, 9 April 2008
• 20:02, 9 April 2008
• 20:03, 9 April 2008
• 20:37, 9 April 2008
• 20:55, 9 April 2008
• 21:23, 9 April 2008
• 21:23, 9 April 2008

What is interesting about this last series of edits is that SaltyBoatr requested page protection before even starting his edits! This definitely smacks of “gaming the system”, to get his edits in before the article is locked.

The end result of this editor's recurring practice, of either starting an edit war, and requesting page protection or requesting page protection and then editing fast and furious, is ultimately the cessation of the editing of articles to achieve balance, primarily through keeping affected articles perpetually locked from editing, or locked down in an unbalanced version per Wikipedia policy until disputes are resolved, which, with this editor, almost never occurs.

The core of the dispute revolves around how to edit articles on Wikipedia productively in the face of one editor who is gaming the system, while exhibiting WP:TEND, WP:OWN, WP:WIKILAWYERING, and similar issues. The dispute over content is less of an issue, especially when editors work productively as a community, to achieve balance. Yet, with this editor, mediations or discussions rarely reach resolution. The key issue revolves around SaltyBoatr's approach to editing all gun-related political articles on Wikipedia.

Yaf (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The core of the dispute to date has been that SaltyBoatr will not ever compromise, but instead insists on censorship of any and all facts regarding any mention of any cited major points of view that happen to disagree with his own personal POV. High hundreds of kb have been expended by the sum total of all the editors on each point of dispute on each article, attempting compromise after compromise, but SaltyBoatr continues to insist that the "balance" of the article is not ever balanced despite the inclusion of reliable and verifiable sources that are worked ad nauseum during the talk page discussions, the mediations, etc.. SaltyBoatr never, ever agrees with any "compromise" save total censorship of all content that disagrees with his own narrow personal POV. In the case of the hunting weapon mediation, we now learn (below) that SaltyBoatr finally "agreed", yet, during the mediation, compromise after compromise was proposed and he never once indicated that he agreed with any of the cited sources or the final wording of the title of the article. Again, he simply "gamed the system". Should an editor be allowed to disrupt Wikipedia continuously, without contributing any significant content, and be permitted to force articles to remain protected indefinitely, unless censorship of cited content representing major points of view, cited with numerous, reliable, and verifiable sources, are removed? This occurs over and over, simply because one disruptive editor forever claims the "balance" of the article is never neutral (since the article never agrees with his single-minded acceptance of the Oxford English Dictionary, only, or similar single sources. Multiple points of view representing all major viewpoints should be permitted in articles, instead of strictly permitting only a single, narrow point of view. ArbCom clearly needs to take this case. Yaf (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anastrophe

due to time constraints, my comments are limited simply to this: i concur with all of the points user yaf has made. Anastrophe (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by scot

My experience with SaltyBoatr is primarily in the context of the naming of the article Hunting weapon, so I'm going to restrict most of my comments to that topic.

SaltyBoatr took umbrage with the title of the article, claiming that use of the term weapon used in a non-military sense was not a "standard English" usage (of which SaltyBoatr appears to be the sole arbitrer) and was in conflict with the OED definition of "weapon". He rejected a myriad of other readily available sources that used "weapon", including other dictionaries (including Oxford University Press publications), laws from numerous countries, trade publications, Encyclopedia Britannica, and other reliable sources--and these included American, British, Australian, and Canadian sources, to establish world-wide usage--standing by his interpretation of the OED definition. When I managed to track down the OED definition (via a 3-day access pass sent to me by a friend who had university access), I noticed that the phrase "sporting and military weapons" was CLEARLY STATED in the sources listed in the OED definition, clearly refuting SaltyBoatr's argument about the usage of weapon only applying to a military context. After a condescending "I truly appreciate your cooperation by actually looking at the OED definition", he did not give in, but rather changed tactics.[75]

The next step was to attack the use of the word hunting, claiming that hunting means only to pursue. Again, he rejected all sources other than his own narrow interpretation of his single source, and again, he ignored the fact that the OED clearly lists game, prey, and for food or sport as part of the definitions for hunting. There was also a vast collection of evidence against his position presented, such as the common terms hunting license, hunting law, and, let's not forget, hunting weapon. Literally hundreds of scholarly sources were presented, all rejected in favor of his narrow interpretation (and of course my presentation of hundreds of uses of hunting weapon in anthropological sources was denigrated as a "POV push").[76]

Looking at other incidents, SaltyBoatr appears to have a history of vigorously objecting to any sources that do not support his viewpoint. A quick look at recently contributions shows him rejecting a valid source that shows that gun control does not work, yet social programs do;[77], yet not long before this is case where he supports inclusion of a meaningless source, which shows that inner city youth would prefer to live a society with fewer guns.[78] Are inner city youth more credible than actual statistics compiled, showing crime rates before and after gun bans and social intervention? Or are they chosen just because they fit the author's bias? Again, this appears to be selected attacks upon sources which support an opposing viewpoint.

While I understand that every editor will have some natural bias, readily questioning the things with which they disagree, and being less vigilant about the things with which they do agree, it must be kept to a reasonable level. The argument over hunting weapon was enough to chase off not one but two moderators, all over an argument where NO source other than the single source which (appeared) to support his argument would be accepted. While this is not a technical violation of the neutral point of view policy, the attempt to favor one single source over a dozen or more other conflicting sources certainly seems to violate the spirit of the policy. scot (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SaltyBoatr

The reason we are here is that we have been unable to find a mutually acceptable compromise to a dispute about editing the Second Amendment article. I ask the arbitration committee to help us find that compromise. Yaf is asking the arbitration committee to ban an editor so that he will not have to make a compromise.

As you are probably aware, there is a strong division of opinion about gun rights, both in the reliable sourcing and in the personal opinion of editors. Here, we see five editors who share a "pro-gun" personal POV, and myself. The question at hand is whether these six editors can set aside their personal views and edit the article according to the neutrality balance found in the reliable sourcing? The answer is no, we have failed.

Far too often we have gone with the 5:1 majority vote of personal opinion instead of the NPOV proportional weight found in the reliable sourcing.

How should five editors with a pro-gun point of view associate with one editor who does not share that point of view?

The answer for Yaf, Anastrophe and SMP0328 is to join together and 'shout down' the minority and seek to get the minority editor banned. I agree that this boils down to questions about personal conduct. I disagree that this should stop at review of the conduct of SaltyBoatr instead it should be a review of the conduct of all the involved editors.

There are dozens of instances to review, but here are just a few which are representative:

• Anastrophe, trolling on talk pages and bitting newcomers: "i feel no constraint in responding", "enjoy yanking people's chains""how's the weather in france?".
• Anastrophe declaring intent to defend his personal pro-gun POV"...rather than having the gun rights POV slowly whittled away by some editors, much like the camel's nose in the tent.".
• SMP0238 argues against negotiation with the minority: Does one person not agreeing with the edits of others mean there must be a negotiation? If so, then SaltyBoatr effectively owns this article.
• The Second Amendment dispute[79] revolves around the quality of Yaf's sourcing. Yet Yaf ignores and refuses to answer reasonable questions[80] about his sourcing. Yaf claims to have read his extremely obscure hardcopy cite[81], but refuses to answer questions about it or to provide any quotations from the hardcopy[82].
• Yaf, incivility "...Off your meds, obviously"
• Yaf edit warring[83][84][85][86][87][88] over {{POV}} and {{PrimarySources}} tags.

Trying to be brief, I will not comment on all of Yaf's accusations above. Still, one of Yaf's diffs (19:31, 9 April 2008) is illustrative: Yaf objects to my edit where I removed a cite based on an essay originally written for a National Rifle Association essay contest found on a pro-gun website[89], and I replace it with an improved cite based on a mainstream book[90] published by a well known scholarly publishing house. This reveals Yaf's tendency to edit the pro-gun beliefs of the National Rifle Association, drawing heavily upon pro-gun websites into Wikipedia firearms articles, and of Yaf's opposition to neutral edits using mainstream published sources.

I object to the accusation that I am 'gaming the system', as that is an accusation against my good intent. My intent is good and squarely in line with WP:Civility, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Yaf's request of the arbitration committee is to get me banned to avoid needing to compromise. My request of the arbitration committee is: Please take this case to help us find a compromise. Thank you. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Responding to scot's comments above about Hunting weapon, I agree that that discussion took far too long, due to initial stonewalling. Ultimately, instead of stonwalling, scot actually presented evidence of his position which convinced me of the validity of his position. In the end that the dispute was amicably resolved through question and answer dialog. If only such dialog would occur in the present dispute[91]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SMP0328.

In regards to the Second Amendment article, SaltyBoatr has acted as if he owns the article. He continues to dictate how, and when, the article is to be edited. He is adversarial and does not appear to be seeking consensus. In order to prevent edits that he disapproves, SaltyBoatr initiates edit wars and then gets the article placed under full protection. This behavior should not be tolerated or permitted. In regards to the Second Amendment article, I concur with Yaf's comments; I have not edited, or discussed, any of the other articles mentioned by Yaf. SMP0328. (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Wizardman

Well, these articles have been a problem amongst these editors for quite some time. Hundreds upon hundreds of kb of discussion with very little, if anything, getting done. May I ask how a user conduct RfC would solve the underlying problems? Attitudes aren't going to change as a result if they haven't already through two Medcom cases. Therefore, Arbcom should accept this and try and figure this out. An RfC will solve nothing, and dispute resolution has already been tried more than once now. Wizardman 16:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Waiting for more comments, but at first look requesting arbitration now seems premature. Likely should try an user conduct RFC to see if that helps resolve the issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Now reject after reading the statements. I still recommend a user conduct RFC and further mediation resolve the content dispute. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, per FloNight. Kirill ^(prof) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reject this case for now, but more constructive discussion involving give and take on all sides is needed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and footnote quotes

Initiated by RedSpruce (talk) at 10:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RedSpruce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [92]
• [93]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Footnote quotes
• User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Discussion
• Also several RFCs, including: [94], [95]

Statement by Norton

The quote function is a part of the all the citation templates. Quoting the actual text in the article aids the researcher and the fact checker, thats why the snippet view of Google is so popular, you can see the text in situ in the sentence that was used. If they appear to clutter the article in larger articles, we can always write a few lines of code that can suppress them from displaying, but still allow them to be seen in editing. We could also have the reader choose in preferences if they want them displayed or not. It allows many useful things for both the casual reader and for the serious researcher:

• 1) Allows for reconnection of broken links to a newspaper article. For example: if the title is: "Scientist killed", and the quote is "Today, John Bacon, a New Jersey scientist was killed when his car overturned". A Google search for the title may not find the article, its too general. Using the text string from the quote will find it. Broken links that can't be reconnected are usually deleted. Even if an external link for the citation is broken, and no other version of the newspaper article appears online, a fully-quoted reference can stand on its own.
• 2) It provides the actual information for fact checking the citation. It makes it easy to double check references that are already in place. You no longer have to have the attitude "trust me" it is in the book, or it is in the article. The actual in situ quote supporting the citation is displayed with the actual wording by the original author. The Wikipedia trend should be to make it easy to fact check an article, not harder. You shouldn't have to get a book from the library or purchase an article to find out the exact wording used by an author to see if it actually supports the text in the Wikipedia article.
• 3) It is not a copyright violation, the source is attributed, and the quote is usually a single sentence, well within the confines of "fair use". In the Tom Wolfe example, which has been deleted multiple times, the article is 4,254 words and my quote uses 43 of them, or 1%. Whole paragraphs can be used in citations with the blockquote parameter in the body of the article without being considered an abuse of fair use. The titles of the articles, which in newspapers can be longer than the quote, are not considered a violation of fair use.
• 4) Redspruce himself quotes text in some of his notes and references. See below where he writes "On the other hand, author Tom Wicker refers to Schine as 'Cohn's boyfriend'". It takes up a little less space, because he only encloses two words from the text in the quote, but the reader, including me, is still left to wonder what preceded 'Cohn's boyfriend'. "[He had wild animal sex all day and night as] Cohn's boyfriend" is very different from "[He was derided by his enemies as] Cohn's boyfriend". Which is it, if any? I looked up the ones I quoted because I wanted to see the exact wording. Others shouldn't have to repeat the effort to find out the exact, non-truncated, single-sentence quote.
• 5) It doesn't add to clutter, any more than inline citations do already. No one forces a reader to scroll down to the reference section in an article, any more than one is forced to read the endnotes in a book. In scholarly books they can be between 25-50% of a book's pages. Just a few years ago no citations were required in Wikipedia articles.

• Here is a good example of using quotes in citations and how they clear up what is in the article, and how it aids the researcher:

Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual.

Well, what exactly do people have to say about whether Schine was gay or not, how strongly did they word it, and what words did they use. For instance the Tom Wolfe article up to a month ago required a paid subscription to the New York Times, but now is a free link, but you still can't just do a control-f and search for "gay" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use any of those words. You have to read the whole article to find the single sentence where Wolfe says: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." For a book you would have to get the book at a library, to look up the text. If the quote parameter is used and the exact wording for the sentence is known, it can be searched in Google Book.

6) Editors are skeptical of new information added to articles, so the best effort should be made to persuade them that the information is legitimate, and make that vetting process as easy as possible. For example:

• Here a skeptical editor reverts corrections in an article to dates of birth and death. If the references were clearer, it would be easier for the skeptical editor to see which information was correct. The deated deleted by the skeptic were the correct dates.
• Here again the skeptical editor reverts changes in an article to a correct school attended by the subject (the subject switched schools, so attended both) and labels it vandalism. More easy to read references, with the quoted text may persuade the editor that the information is correct and not vandalism.
• Here a skeptical editor removes the subject years of birth and death, maiden name, and place of death. Again, to persuade the skeptical editor, easy to vet, fully quoted citations should be used to persuade them that the information is real and not vandalism. A good editor should always be skeptical, and that why the best references are complete, and easy to verify.
• Here the skeptical editor removed information on the subject's job, husband's name, and where they were buried. Again, if the references were clearer, and the quote function used to it's fullest, perhaps the skeptical editor would be persuaded that the information comes from a reliable source.
• Here a skeptical editor removes the names of the subject's children and other information involving their role in a Senate subcommittee. If the original editor had supplied better information, I am sure the deleter would have been less skeptical of the information and it would have remained. The quote function makes for a complete reference, and takes less effort to verify the facts. I only blame myself for the deletions for not providing more complete information, all new information should be treated with skepticism, and I applaud skeptical editors.
• Here a skeptical editor removes the names of two people involved in the Army-McCarthy Hearings that were mentioned in their obituaries in the New York Times. Again the burden is one me, the person adding the information, to persuade the skeptic that the infomation is factual and verifiable. Although I thought they were well referenced, I should have been even more clear in the sources and quotes so that the information could stay in the article. I should never overburden the fact checker, it should be as easy as possible to confirm with clickable links, and quoted information. As the skeptical fact checker points out, the burden is on the person adding the fact to the article, to show that is comes from a reliable source.

As RAN knows, I am the "skeptical editor" in all of the above cases. As RAN knows, in two of these I RVed technical changes made without comment by an anon editor. As RAN knows, in the other cases I was reverting for reasons that had nothing to do with skepticism. As RAN knows, in no case did "clarity of references" have anything to do with anything. RAN is playing games with the Arbitration Committee here. RedSpruce (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Past efforts at mediation

• ANI against RS
• RS ANI against Norton
• Second ANI against RS
• Third attempt at RS Norton mediation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Note: The first of these predates any interaction between myself and RAN. RedSpruce (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by RedSpruce

Reply to FayssalF - I've added links to 2 of the RFCs. I think there was at least one other, but I couldn't find the dif. We haven't tried a third opinion. I'm reasonably sure that another 3rd opinion would make no impression on RAN; other editors have disagreed with him on this point before [96] with no effect. As for myself, it would take a well-reasoned argument to convince me that I'm wrong here. RedSpruce (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad - Although RAN has doled out a series of insults to me, I don't care about that, and since he is currently making an honest effort to engage in discussion I have no real complaint about his user conduct as such. Apparently quite a number of people have had complaints about Alansohn's conduct (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn), but that's not my issue here either. When RAN was refusing to discuss edit disputes I opened an ANI about this, but it came to nothing. At best, mediation would convince RAN to stop his dis-improving edits on a single article, and I doubt he would agree to participate in mediation.RedSpruce (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement - This Arb Request has to do with a seemingly minor issue of style, but one that is being repeated so often, on so many articles, that the cumulative effect is a notable detriment to Wikipedia.

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ('RAN') is an extremely prolific editor with over 47,000 contributiions.[97] A great many of his contributions are in the form of adding references to articles. When he adds reference footnotes, he usually makes use of the "quote =" parameter available in citation templates. Unfortunately, in most of these edits, the quote parameter is used for no good purpose; he simply takes a quotation from the source without considering whether that quotation adds information to the article or simply repeats information already in the article. At times his quoted text is completely irrelevant to the footnoted portion of the article.

This use of quotations--where the quotation adds no significant and relevant information to the article--is not in keeping with standard citation practice, and to my knowledge it has never been used in an article that has achieved Featured Article status. Since I consider these edits of RAN to be detrimental, and since I have had no success in reasoning with him about this issue (see Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Footnote quotes and User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Discussion for two of many examples), this has been the cause of endless edit wars between us. RAN's contributions are usually to obscure articles, and in my dealings with him it has often been impossible to get anything more than a fleeting and disinterested "drive by" comment from outside editors.

Here are some illustrative dif.s:

Quote is irrelevant to footnoted text:

• [98], [99], [100]

Quote repeats information in the article:

• [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]

Quote is irrelevant to footnoted text and repeats information elsewhere in the article:

• [106], [107], [108] , [109], [110]

Given the number of RAN's edits, it would be possible to list literally thousands of examples like this. Each one is only a minor dis-improvement to its article, but taken as a whole, they represent real damage to Wikipedia. Furthermore, this damage is happening because of a single, relatively isolated lack of understanding on RAN's part.

If the ArbCom could make a ruling that directs RAN to use quotations in footnotes correctly, then Wikipedia will greatly benefit. Alternatively, if the ArbCom can show me in what way my reasoning about this issue is incorrect, then I'll stop making this objection and a longstanding dispute will be settled.

I'm including User: Alansohn as an involved party because he has a pattern of supporting RAN in this and other edit conflicts. He generally does this with little or not participation on an article's Talk page.

Mea culpa

My first encounter with RAN was at Annie Lee Moss. In the discussion there, he persistently refused for long periods to respond to my comments, and when he did respond it was with a bizarre series of off-topic comments. See Talk:Annie Lee Moss#Pointless. This caused escalating frustration on my part, and I insulted him. [111] Since this time RAN has gradually improved his responsiveness to calls for discussion, and our interactions are at present tolerably civil. Nevertheless, I'm sure that RAN will use this ArbReq to complain about my "long term civility issues".

Note: Here is the discussion on that issue:RS ANI against Norton --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Alansohn

This is a very simple issue. User:RedSpruce has taken WP:OWNership of a series of articles related to Joseph McCarthy, the Army-McCarthy Hearings. Efforts to expand, improve and source these articles have been met by unexplained reverts and gross incivility. The quote feature is a widely used function within Wikipedia, and is intended to provide documentation of the specific material being cited within the reference. While there is ample room for quibbling about the specific text to be included, there is no argument as to its intended purpose. RedSpruce has turned his own personal battle on content and extended it to beselessly impose his personal preferenece that quotations should never be used under any circumstances.

RedSpruce is free to argue what should be included in reference quotations, yet his near exclusive respone has been to remove quotations or references in tehir entirety, regardless of their clear relevance to the points being supported. The only variations on User:RedSpruce's part have been whether abusive statements have been included.

The solution here is clear. A content ban should be placed on User:RedSpruce on articles related to the area of Joseph McCarthy and the Army-McCarthy Hearings. Warnings on further incivility on the part of User:RedSpruce should be included with any actions. It may be possible for RedSpruce to make productive edits where his strong personal biases do not manifest themselves as violating WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL when editors stray from his demands. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:KrakatoaKatie

I have had the same problem with Alansohn and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). In October 2007, I was asked, on my talk page, by User:Wildhartlivie to give an opinion about the use of long quotes in the cited references of Dan Antonioli, a stub article created by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). This is the last version of the article prior to Wildhartlivie's addition of the copyvio template. I investigated, scoured the WP:RS and WP:CP talk archives for previous discussions, and spent an entire afternoon on it. In the end, I concluded that it is/was a copyright violation of four different websites, including one site with a strongly worded copyright statement. Since there were no clean revisions (and the paragraphs/quotes in the cited references were longer than the article itself), I made a case for deletion under WP:CSD#G12 as a blatant copyright violation. I had no objections to recreation of a new article in original prose, and I probably should have made that clear.

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and Alansohn disagreed, as did Woohookitty. I was not very experienced or assertive as an admin, and I was intimidated, quite frankly, by the in-your-face, long-winded approach I faced on that talk page. When Woohookitty voiced her opinion, I dropped the issue, and the article remained as it was. The quotes in the references have been shortened somewhat in the current version of the article.

I think Alansohn's allegations about RedSpruce are intended to draw attention away from the core of this request, which is the use of long quoted statements or even paragraphs in cited references and the actions of two editors who almost always act as one. They use a tag team approach to buttress each other's arguments, introduce irrelevant subjects or fallacies into discussions, and bully other editors. I feel there are user conduct and encyclopedia content issues here that ArbCom should investigate. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Wildhartlivie

I am commenting mostly to reinforce that in my view, this is not an issue of attempts at ownership of an article, or articles. The practice under discussion here is pervasive with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and has been at issue in the past. The question of the appropriateness of use of the quote function and how this user has been utilizing it has been at issue well beyond the ones under discussion. As noted by KrakatoaKatie above regarding the Dan Antonioli article, large blocks of quotes were used in the absence of them being incorporated into articles. At no time during the Antonioli discussion was any attempt made by the author to incorporate and expand the article with the use of those sources. This particular article had been under question for deletion and my involvement came from supporting the retention of the article, with the caveat that it needed a LOT of work, and in trying to urge its expansion, was met with the lack of response and the uptake of the argument by Alansohn, the same circumstances indicated by RedSpruce above. One argument at the time from User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) was that it was preserving the quote in situ, to which I counter argued that inserting a block of text via copy and paste was not in situ preservation at all, and there were archive options available to be used when sources were in danger of being lost online. What I have seen is often copy and pasting of the opening paragraphs from, for example, New York Times archives. That particular method links us to a page at the Times website that purchase is required to access the rest of the article, which may or may not contain the material actually being cited. I took it to WP:Citing sources, the entire discussion of which can be seen here. The overall consensus at that time was that this practice violated the intent of the use of the quote function, as was summarized on that page by User:John Broughton. That discussion was obviously ignored and rejected, which brings it to issue yet again, with the same issues. I truly believe a ruling by ArbCom is necessary in this case since efforts at resolution over a variety of articles with a variety of editors has been the case. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Here is the article in question:

• Dan Antonioli
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Antonioli

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:John Broughton

As noted, this issue was discussed in October 2007 at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 19#Quotes in references. My final comment in that section was: at this point Wildhartlivie, IvoShandor, Arnoutf, qp10qp, SallyScot, AndToToToo, CBM, Shirahadasha, and I have expressed opposition to the practice of putting chunks of text into footnotes, a practice that is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and that is in no way the norm at Wikipedia. I think that's about as close to consensus as most discussions get, and I suggest that the practice stop. Wildhartlivie added one more comment to that section; then nothing happened until it was achived in January 2008. Given that the opposed practice has continued, this seems to me a clear case of defiance of consensus. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it telling that Mr. Norton's statement, at the moment, is to argue the merits of his approach to footnotes. I have seen these arguments before, and continue to find them unconvincing; he both overstates the advantages and fails to consider the disadvantages, which I consider more significant. But this arbitration case, of course, is not the place to debate the merits of such a change - the point is that Mr. Norton is unwilling to abide by the rules, which say that if one is unable to convince (the majority) of other editors of the merits of one's position, then it is unacceptable to continue on as if a negative consensus did not exist. Mr. Norton's editing is disruptive; his pattern of ignoring the opinions of other editors should be considered unacceptable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• RedSpurce, I see that you both tried the AN/I multiple times but I see no diff related to the several Rfc's you are referring to in your statement. Have you tried to consult a third opinion beforehand? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• Before voting, I'd appreciate the parties' thoughts on whether a user-conduct RfC and/or mediation (formal or informal) might be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'm troubled by some of the allegations here. Alansohn, do you have diffs for the behaviour you mention? Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Moving to accept, per FloNight. I'm not sure everything alleged in the request is accurate but there's enough of a problem for me to conclude that we should look in more detail. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. I think we can help sort out this issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill ^(prof) 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

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

Request to amend prior case: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek and /Moby Dick as well as most recent case

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

• White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Thomas Jerome Newton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) <-
  • Diyarbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by White Cat

Considering how many times arbcom and the community gave me a second chance (never), I am rather baffled... Community could at least pretend to care what I have to say... :(

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Jack Merridew a discussion to community unblock this user has recently started and Jack Merridew was unblocked and unbanned almost instantly after the case was filed. Most relevant past discussions are linked at User:White Cat/RFAR/graph although I would expect all arbitrators to be rather familiar with the case by now.

I think Arbcom should decide on this case per arbcoms past decline rationale [112]. Arbcom should not be completely bypassed and ignored like how the community is doing right now.

It is important to note that some of the people commenting on WP:AN share the same opinion as Jack Merridew on the matter of E&C articles which may be a coi.

-- Cat ^chi? 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

White Cat states; "It is important to note that some of the people commenting on WP:AN share the same opinion as Jack Merridew on the matter of E&C articles which may be a coi.". I am probably one of those he is referring to, in which case I feel it is equally important to note that a higher number of editors who commented against Merridew's unblocking are those who are on precisely the opposite side of the E&C ArbCom, and therefore this issue is irrelevant. Black Kite 00:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Addition edit in response to Casliber below; I do not understand why restriction from AfD is required - all AfD comments should be backed up by policy - if they aren't, they are required to be ignored by the closing admin. Therefore a suggestion that an editor should be barred from AfD is effectively pointless. Black Kite 00:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber

I agree that arbcom should at least review what is going on, given the length of problems having occurred thus far, to validate that consensus has indeed occurred. The central issue is what is a net positive to wikipedia and to that end much of the AfD debates have been highly contentious and draining on alot of editors. I agree David (Jack) has alot to contribute but ongoing trench warfare would reinforce tendentious behaviour previously seen in the stalking and harassment. I note I am on 'the opposite side' yet I am prepared to work with and mentor if need be. The fact that votes are stacking along the same old lines shows it is not irrelevant. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hence my proposal for a 6 or 12 month moratorium on participation in AfD debates. David/Jack has a strong opinion on Systemic Bias which I fully support, I just feel it would be of huge benefit to W'pedia to be addressed with carrots instead of sticks. I fully believe he could be producing Good or Featured Articles as I think he has considerable talent in this area and I will do my utmost to keep interactions positive and looking forward rather than becoming enmired in past conflicts. I am hoping this can be achieved collaboratively but admit I am concerned over past history. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

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

• John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (subject to restriction in earlier case - notified of this discussion here)

Statement by John Carter

Requesting clarification whether the restriction passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites#MichaelCPrice restricted is to apply to only that article, related articles, or wikipedia in general.

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The restriction is general; were it limited to a single article, it would state that explicitly. Kirill ^(prof) 01:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Exactly. I'm surprised anyone thinks there's any ambiguity. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Agree that it applies to all articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: The list of users in affected areas is too large to collect, list and notify conveniently. I will place notices of this request, so the community as a whole is aware, on the village pump,[113] administrators' noticeboard,[114] and fringe theory noticeboard.[115] If another editor believes there is a specific user or another on-wiki forum that should receive notice, they should feel free to drop a link to them.

Statement by Vassyana

I would like to request that ArbCom explicitly permit discretionary sanctions on all pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here. That is only the recent threads, only from the AE noticeboard, only involving a very limited number of users involved in the broader dispute. I believe ArbCom explicitly endorsing discretionary sanctions would empower and embolden sysops and the community to resolve these long-standing issues, once and for all. Vassyana (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about potential admin abuse

Regarding the concerns about potential admin abuse, I would expect that if ArbCom accepted this request that they would be open to reviewing complaints about related admin abuse. I believe this would increase the oversight and reduce the potential abuse of sysop discretion. Sysops would have to be accoutable for their actions.

I believe relying on more than common sense for the definition of "uninvolved" will only lead to wikilawyering. All of the proposed definitions I've seen essentially leave massive loopholes that anyone looking to game the system or skirt the rules could use. If there is a disagreement about whether an administrator is involved or not, a brief community discussion or appeal to ArbCom should suffice. I simply fail to see the point of creating a limited definition prone to gaming, which would require other admins and the community to employ their natural power of reason regardless. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Neal's oppose, I simply cannot understand that point of view, though I have tried. We permit administrators to impose full site blocks without an expiration date at their discretion. I fail to see how giving administrators lessor options (such as a topic ban instead of a full block) in long-disputed areas with persistant conduct problems would increase abuse potential. I should additionally note that we're discussing long-term problems, involving users who either know better by know or almost assuredly are never going to get it, not newbies who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Vassyana (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment directly (if not you can move this to my section). I'm more concerned about abuse-through-misunderstanding rather than abuse-abuse. It's not always clear what's neutral, and the discretionary sanctions designed for Homeopathy and the Palestine-Israeli issue are designed for narrow subjects. A broader subject category, like all pseudoscience/alternative science, becomes muddled with lots of other issues (see my statement). The discretionary sanctions for the narrow topics say any percieved "[failure] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", by any admin who feels strongly about it. There's lots of admins who feel strongly about their interpretation of NPOV, whether they're involved or not, and especially if they're involved in the broader discussions though not technically involved in the given page at the given time. The discretionary sanctions don't discriminate between bad editor practices like incivility, edit warring, etc. and good faith content disputes. Good faith content disputes can easily be seen as a "conduct problem", as that happens all the time. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but hopefully you can see where the concern comes from. On a side-note, if we already have tools available for getting problem editors off these articles, why aren't they already banned? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about community discussion

Requesting or advocating that such discretionary empowerment be limited to consensus discussions is essentially the same as opposing this request. The community already has the power to impose bans and other sanctions via community discussion. I tend to think that over time, using such a method will only open up another battleground. Enforcement threads have already become another place to argue for the disputants in heated areas. I shudder to think what kind of response would be received after the first couple of sanction discussions make it "real" to such parties. (For an example, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#User:Mccready_-_endless.2C_disruptive.2C_repetitive_edit_warring.)

Regarding the concern about appeals, they should generally be appealable like any other admin action enforcing ArbCom sanctions: 1) Post to AN to ask other admins to review it. 2) Appeal to ArbCom. Excessive, repeated or otherwise disruptive series of appeals are not appeals at all; they are stumping and should be treated by another uninvolved administrator as disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to concerns about scope

What if the scope were limited to areas and users that have severe long-running and/or perpetually recurring behavioral issues? I believe that would keep the scope from being too broad or limited. Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I heartily endorse this request for stronger measures re editors on both sides of this issue. More details to follow. I'll be on wiki break much of this weekend. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nealparr

Sure, if by "uninvolved administrator" you mean administrators not involved in "pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed" as a whole, or regularly, rather than a given page at a given time. After years of this madness, Wikipedia has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges and axes to grind. I'm sure many of them would love to ban their opponents on content disputes for up to a year. What sort of assurances can one like myself who edits paranormal-related articles as a hobby, not advocacy, be given that the new powers won't be abused? I don't edit war, am civil, but I've irritated admins in the past simply by disagreeing with them in content disputes, particularly that Wikipedia can also cover folklore neutrally without having a solely science point-of-view. Some admins adamantly reject that eventhough most agree that such a prospect is entirely neutral. AGF went out the window about two years ago on these topics, so frankly I'm a little concerned.

Paranormal topics aren't just pseudoscience (though they are, in part, that). There's also a historical perspective (eg. Remote viewing was studied by the CIA, UFOs were studied by the Air Force, Parapsychology was once accepted by the elite in society like William James, etc.). Presenting that historical information is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the sociological perspective (eg. 73 percent of the general US population holds some sort of paranormal belief [116]). Presenting information regarding just the "beliefs" is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the cultural, folklore perspective (eg. Spooklights are common in Southern US folklore). Talking about the folklore on those articles is sometimes called POV pushing by admins who say that the article should predominantly be about methane gases, etc. So, yes, there is a potential for abuse based solely on ideologies and old grudges. If the goal is to just to refresh the editor pool on these topics regardless of whether they're productive Wikipedians, that's fine, that goal will be served if no oversight is in place. But if the goal is to only target disruptive editors, there will need to be some sort of oversight.

I'd like to see what DGG mentioned below, a Topic Ban Noticeboard and some degree of practical consensus to prevent a single editor/admin, or ideological group of editors/admins, from going ban-happy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

per Vassyana's replies on it's intended use. It seems fundamentally wrong that blocking or banning a user, a person, would have less outside discussion than what it takes to delete an article. This is essentially a "speedy delete" applied to a user, in spirit. It's always harder to correct a mistake than it is to prevent a mistake. Community discussion is essential when dealing with users who may not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, and determining what actually is wrong to begin with. That's what RfCs are all about. If the goal is to relieve the burden on the ArbCom, that can be done without dropping the discussions altogether. A very simple way to do that is to say "If after a RfC about applying sanctions on the user, allowing for community input and consensus-building, an uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict." Anything less is setting the bar for deleting a user from a topic lower than deleting a topic itself. The RfC also has the benefit of providing the banning/blocking admin with a summary of the issues surrounding the user so they could make an informed decision. The admin could, of course, in their discretion, interpret the RfC anyway they wish and impose their discretionary sanctions, but at least there'd be a discussion on the matter. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

Concur that this is a good idea, as an admin who is a regular at WP:AE. Editors active in this area should write their comments assuming that their own actions, and those of whom they agree with on content, will be reviewed and possibly sanctioned. I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned, which is a bad sign for the ability of the editors in these areas to work together. We need to clear out those who can't or won't work with those who disagree with them so that a reasonable communal editing environment exists for current and future editors. GRBerry 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a strong definition of uninvolved/neutral is needed here. I commend the WP:ARBPIA model - has never been involved in a content dispute on any article in the pseudoscience/paranormal topic area with that topic area broadly construed. GRBerry 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more than that. We need a statement of neutrality toward the subjects themselves. I've seen mediators come in and say essentially "Well it's bunk so..." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

Endorse per everything Nealparr said. I have very little confidence in the ability of admins 1) to be neutral if they are involved and 2) to get it if they are not. Indeed, I have seen editors like Zvika who did my interview struggle with the issues in these cases, and find it nearly impossible (many many hours of work to get up to date). I have seen obviously biased admins who are supposedly "outside" the debates come in and give sanctions. For example, some of those banning people relative to the 9/11 or Homeopathy issues. In other words, I have no fear of neutrality, but I have fear of hidden bias. If even Nealparr is scared, I certainly am, because I've been deionized all over the place irrespective of my actual edits, beliefs, ideas or intent.

I would like an advocate that I can agree is neutral, such as LaraLove or DGG or maybe Vassyana to review things before any action is take against me. Same for others.

I suggest that a committee of truly neutral subject matter experts, or simply editors truly neutral to the subjects be set up to deal with sourcing in paranormal areas. "Do you feel neutral toward issues of the paranormal?" Should be the question. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

I think the "endorsements" above show why it might not actually work--the disagreement between different arbitrators over the standards for these articles is fairly complete. Everyone things that they are neutral. I can predict what will happen, which is continual appeals from it, carried on in every forum possible, just as present. And i do not think the problem is that hopeless either, because I think the community is evolving standards. The problem is not individual topics--the problem is what degree of tolerance we should have for disruptive actions by good editors. Personally, I don't think they should get the essentially free ride they have at present.

If we do something of this sort, I would not leave it to individual admins. or editors. What I think we'd need is the equivalent of a topic ban noticeboard, and some degree of practical consensus would be required. I remember the fate of the community ban noticeboard and I'm a little skeptical. DGG (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

I believe that, if implemented properly, could be an effective tool in finally ending the heated disagreements between the "anti-science" and "pro-science" camps. I do not believe it will lead to an end of hidden bias or blatant bias -- nor should it -- but that the implementation of a topic ban could finally kill the endless attacks against other editors and administrators, and could finally open the door for new editors, with fresh viewpoints and dialogues, to come in and edit.

I'd also like to echo GRBerry's comments above. There are multiple editors who have developed "watch lists" of other editors and administrators that they either want banned, or removed from various positions at Wikipedia. I will not go into specifics here regarding that, but it's a statement that's been made numerous times previously, here and elsewhere, and that it is leading to a serious divide in how, as editors and administrators, can resolve this long-standing conflict. I'd like to see a "topic ban noticeboard," but I am afraid that it would fall to either inactivity or hidden bias. seicer | talk | contribs 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I understand the intention, and fear the result. I think that in order to maintain standing as an encyclopedia, we need be more specific, and actually take a side in favor of facts. Discretionary sanctions should be made available, targeted towards editors that make edits stating or implying a factual basis for pseudoscientific or paranormal topics. If we did that for a while, the heat and rancor would die down, because people attempting to corrupt the encyclopedia would eventually be eliminated.Kww (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Butler

Any effort that would make it possible for administrators to more effectively arbitrate content disputes would help. I have been treated as poorly by some admins as I have by some rank and file editors, so I am not in favor of giving any individual admin more authority. Perhaps a cadre of three or five editors would provide protection to both sides.

Lets face it, an arbitration takes way too long, and as I can see, they have hardly any effect except to more clearly define the sides. If an admin blocks an appeal to authority, then the person making the appeal is discredited and the abusive editor becomes more bullet proof. In fact, Wikipedia is not able to manage editors who are willing to game the system.

I have only edited on a few paranormal articles so I may be unaware of some of the grievances. Nevertheless, from my viewpoint, it is unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to arbitrate content disputes without deciding on content--not taking sides, but saying what the article will include. I would be comfortable with a venue in which I could present my viewpoint to a panel, editors with a contrary viewpoint could do the same and the panel would decide the article based on their "fair and informed" decision of what was presented. Give each presenter 500 words and ten diffs. I think I could find a way to live with that and I am certainly willing to try. Tom Butler (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jossi

Agree in principle with Vassyana's proposal, with the caveats presented by DGG, that is to have a place in which we can assess some measure of administrators' consensus when applying broad restrictions such as topic bans or blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:B

This has too much potential for abuse the way it is worded. Some people consider anything they disagree with to be pseudoscience and would attempt to apply this far beyond its scope. (For example, most evangelical Christians believe in something other than atheistic evolution, therefore someone who edits Bobby Bowden is editing an article on pseudoscience, right?) It needs to be spelled out what this applies to - theories of origin, alternative medicine, paranormal, etc. --B (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Baegis

I'm going to have to agree with B on this one. There are some areas which qualify as pseudoscience but which do not need this sort of protection. The ID related articles are stable for the most part, because there are a great number of fine editors who are very active on those pages. They are occasionally disrupted, but not nearly enough for the scope of this proposal to be anything more than a hindrance. The areas that this will apply to need to be better spelled out. There are probably thousands of articles that fall within the pseudoscience area, especially if broadly defined. And if BLP's are included in that, ie the ones of proponents of pseudoscience, there are an even greater number of articles. I would wager that it is pretty clear the the biggest problems lie in the CAM area and the paranormal areas. Focusing on the most problematic areas is a better idea than a big sweeping probation. Baegis (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• We are currently looking into some modifications to the discretionary sanction ruling as part of the Homeopathy case; while I'm open to imposing them here, I'd prefer to avoid doing so until we decide on the better wording there. Kirill ^(prof) 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Per Kirill. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification–Episodes and characters 2

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

• Kww (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked for a week on April 27)
• Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocking admin)

Statement by User:Kww

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

TTN was blocked for one week today, for edits that did not violate a single term of the restrictions from his arbcom enforcement. "Broadly interpreting" [117] and [118] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason.

Can TTN still edit character articles to bring them in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Or is any edit that removes material from a character article capable of being broadly interpreted as a deletion?Kww (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm understood ... I'm not concerned about applying the decision to video-game characters. I'm objecting to the idea that taking an article that was in truly miserable shape and fixing it substantially amounts to a merge or deletion.Kww (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

Over the last week TTN has removed over 80% of the "Final Fight: Streetwise" article 3 times, which TTN claims are trimming and cleaning up, yet in fact whole paragraphs were removed, such as here. In the Mario characters, which have also been on TV as best I recall, he removed entire paragraphs, as here. Similar issues were brought here at AN. As video games are very similar to TV, they often appear on TV in some form, and the fact that this problem was evident during the arbitration hearings, and the ruling says "broadly interpreted", and TTN seems to be pushing the envelope, the need for a block was apparent to me.

An unblock was declined and supported by others.

Response to Kww's clarification...I'd have to say that removing whole sections, paragraphs, and 80% of an article amounts to deletion. This is not "trimming and cleaning up". Further consider that the remedy also said "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." This seems to have been clearly violated by TTN too. There has been no chat at Talk:Final Fight: Streetwise for a year. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

I will be pleasantly surprised if the editors in this area manage to avoid another full ArbComm in the near future. The issues are not specific to TTN; one example is shown by this archived WP:AE report. In my view, problems exist in the behavior of both factions. It seems ridiculous to consider discretionary sanctions for this topic area; these editors should be able to work together to find consensus if they choose to. But if they don't choose to, we may have to end up with discretionary sanctions. GRBerry 13:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• This request has been retitled to "Request for clarification–Episodes and characters 2" (note the "–" after clarification, as oppose to the customary ":"). This is to differentiate it from the similar "Request for clarification: Episodes and characters 2". Please note the difference between the two, and be careful in linking to either thread. Anthøny 18:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarifications: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

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

• Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by User:Pokipsy76

I would ask the Arbcom to clarify this points:

1. Area of conflict: According to the arbcom remedies the "discretionary sanctions" can be delivered to any editor "working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)". I think that the expression "which relates" leave the door open to some interpretations, so I will make two questions to have a clearer understanding:
   1. What if an editor is not working in any article but makes a comment about other admins/users actions (made within the the area of conflict) on a user talk page or on the AN pages? Do "discretionary sanctions" can still be made if an admin (on his or her own discretion) decide for example that the criticism is "disruptive"?
   2. Suppose that someone is editing possibly related articles like George W Bush or Conspiracy theory but is adding or discussing informations about events unrelated to 9/11. Can he/her be "discretionarily sanctioned" or just standard wikipedia rules hold?
2. Topic bans: What if a person who is "topic banned" make the second kind of edit described above? Would it be a violation of the "topic ban"?
3. Retroactivity?: Can the discretionary sanctions be "retroactive" and be delivered if an admin think that a user has been "disruptive" in any time prior to the arbcom decision? If it is so how can this be reconciled with the statement "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision"?
4. Terror: Considering:
   • the fact that the motivations given to justify the "discretionary" bans include
     • edits reflecting a consensus on the talk pages but nevertheless alleged to be "tendentious" by admins: [119] [120]
     • possibly good faith arguments on the talk pages alleged to be "tendentious stonewalling" by admins [121]
   • the lack of any prior warning before heavy sanctions like topic bans [122] [123] [124]
   • threats to people accused of being "tendentious" or "wikilawyering" because they are questioning the decision of the admins [125][126] [127]

These elements all together contribute to create an atmosphere when apparently anyone can legitimately be afraid of being suddenly punished for whatever he does and whatever he says: it seems indeed that almost any action or statement could be in principle be viewed as "tendentious" according to the opinion of this or that admin (even when supported by the consensus). Personally I don't even feel free to express my opinion in talk pages devoted to discussing these sanctions. Given this situation I ask the arbcom if they consider this atmosphere to be the desired result of their remedy. If it is not the case I ask the arbcom which kind of solution can be found.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes regarding the response by Sam Blacketer:

Probably I need to be more clear about point 4: I am not actually disputing any procedure or any decision. I am asking a completely different kind of question: assuming that everything I listed above is formally correct (and therefore this atmosphere of constant danger for whatever one does/says is formally legitimated) do the arbitrators consider this atmosphere to be the desired result of the proposed remedy?

Thank you for your reply.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comments are here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment [to JzG] - It's not honest to reply "yes" to my question and to continue describing something different from what my question was asking. If you don't want to address my question you don't have to, but please don't try to make it say what it is not saying.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [moved here by Jehochman ^Talk]

Statement by User:Xiutwel

• I would like to know if quoting the 9/11 Commission is to be seen as tenditious editing.

(I believe it is important to include some quotes of that Commission's work into the article. I feel that omitting these quotations is biasing the article to a pro-government viewpoint. I had thought the WP:NPOV policy was very clear on representing viewpoints, and actually, I can hardly believe we are still having these discussions. An uninvolved admin never saw why the A-gang admins were blocking such edits, but ofcourse he did not want to upset his peers.)

Yours faithfully,

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Must every remedy imposed over 9/11 Truth Movement lobbying be appealed to this board? Jehochman ^Talk 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

This request appears to be compelling evidence that the remedies of the arbitration case are sound and are being applied to good effect. The only clarification required, is to clarify that yes, the intention was indeed to control disruptive and tendentious editing of the kinds that it appears are being restricted here. Good job by the admins involved. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• My individual views rather than a response on behalf of the committee:

1.1: If comments on admin actions extend to discussions of whether individual admins or groups of them are trying to affect article content rather than acting neutrally, then those editors who make them are included within the definition of 'working in the area of conflict'. Admins should not however judge whether criticisms of their own actions are disruptive.

1.2: If the edits do not relate to 11 September 2001 then they are not covered by discretionary sanctions. Advice can be sought on the talk page, or on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, to get a consensus about whether this is the case.

2: As above, the topic bans are limited to edits relating to 11 September 2001, but advice should be sought if there is a possible dispute about it.

3: Editing behaviour prior to the final decision in the case is relevant in determining whether an editor has been disruptive, but the warning admin should allow the user a chance to demonstrate that their behaviour has changed.

4: The key phrase in the decision is that it applies to those who fail "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", which is to provide a high-quality encyclopaedia which is neutral point of view and based on reliable sources. Consensus on talk pages cannot overrule the purpose of Wikipedia. The notification requirements were complied with in all three cases you link to. Instead of trying to dispute the procedure lying behind decisions, or attacking the admins who have imposed them, editors unhappy with restrictions should look at the aspects of their own behaviour which have provoked them, and see if they can change it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Civility: Giano

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

• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (done)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I propose that the the wording of the incivility parole be amended to include the word "unduly" (or similar) prior to the word "uncivil", to permit the community (and especially the admins) sufficient leeway in attempting to deal with instances of vigorous debate with sometimes colourful language by Giano II. In this instance a heated discussion involving several parties resulted in an enquiry whether Giano II should be sanctioned for their style or tone of comments. I do not believe that the parole was intended to disallow Giano from strongly expressing their views, or to allow opposing parties to use the threat of sanction to discourage Giano from arguing their case (a very foolish premise, it might be concluded), and the wording as is allows for instances of "block shopping". Giano II would still be under sanction for instances of incivility that may be determined as being disruptive.

I shall inform Giano II of this request, but do not anticipate a response (here). I urge the Committee to proceed (or not) independent of a statement by Giano II. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ddstretch

As the person who initiated the enquiry referred to, I would support such an amendment myself.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Until(1 == 2)

The civility policy in no way prevents people from expressing strong views. It just needs to be done in a way that is not nasty. Giano is not being prevented from expressing strong views, but is instead prevented from being uncivil while doing so. You do not need incivility to debate, even when you have strong views. All Giano needs to do in order to avoid sanctions is to treat other editors with more respect. For example he could have explained his objection without saying that his opponent had "the attention span of a gnat", which would have prevented people being concerned about his actions. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ddstretch

In addition to Until(1 ==2)'s point, if Giano took more care to avoid characterising other users (editors and readers) in the way he did, it would help maintain the collaborative nature of wikipedia. It would reduce to a minimum the chance that discussions would get unnecessarily heated or dramatic. The underlying point he was endeavouring to make was made quite reasonably, using rational and calm language (excepting the use of "cognitive deficit"), by another here, for instance.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

There seems to be a confusion between incivility and kid gloves. In the same way that Wikipedia is not censored, it should not be necessary to treat every editor as if they are a grade-schooler from a strict Mormon home who will be offended by the word "bother". A workable definition of civility has to be one which will improve our community and be embraced by it, rather than one which allows polite but vexatious people to drive off those with greater knowledge and understanding than they themselves have, by pretending mortal insults in cases of forceful assertion.

If a civility guideline cannot include, influence and inspire people like Giano, I'd argue that it is a bad guideline. And there is also a huge difference in character between what is said close to the encyclopaedia, and what is acceptable in userspace. We've recently had the utterly absurd case of an admin blocking a long-standing contributor for telling him to "get lost" on his own user page. Some part of the community seems incapable of applying Clue in this matter. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Swatjester: You miss the point. If people consider that following those rules is so important that if one does not then one may be blocked from editing, however prolific one might be as a contributor, then it would be wise to craft the rules in such a way that they do not seem ridiculous to quite so many long-standing contributors. I hold Geogre in the very highest regard, I believe he is a model Wikipedian, and Geogre has stated that the civility guideline, as currently written, is hopelessly flawed. I agree. We seem to be blocking people for failing to adhere to Bible-belt US English usage, while forgetting that faux politeness can conceal behaviour which is entirely inimical to the mission of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Swatjester

Wait, guy, so if Giano can't follow the rules on civility, we should get rid of the rules? No, that's ridiculous. If he can't be civil, he needs to go. That simple. He's not specially excepted from the rules, and we don't get to dismiss every violation he makes of them (of which there are numerous) with "zomg treating him with kid gloves". We've given him enough chances. Time to start actually enforcing the rules equitably, including against Giano. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Civility is always due. The incivility of one editor does not give others with whom they are in discussion an exemption from themselves being civil. Admins do, though, have discretion about whether to enforce sanctions. We are discussing, below, proposals to make special provision for enforcement of Giano's civility sanction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• The promise and actuality of a mutually civil and friendly working environment were things that drew me, as a new editor, to become more active within Wikipedia. I think this is true of many of us, and it is a reason that most of the arbitration decisions I draft begin with the premise that our purpose is to develop a high-quality free-content encyclopedia "in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among contributors." As a general and aspirational matter, I would like to see substantially heightened levels of civility in various places all over the site. However, I think that before we consider blocking an editor for uncivil comments or personal attacks, the history would have to reflect chronic or severe instances of incivility, rather than fleeting and mild ones. This should be understood in connection with all enforcement of the civility and NPA policies, as well as all arbitration decisions imposing civility restrictions or paroles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Episodes and characters 2

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

• Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (left note on talk) (blocked for a week on April 27)
• Sgeureka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (left note on talk and has responded below)

Statement by Kyaa the Catlord

The decision text is : TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate.

My question is the following:

Can TTN request others to redirect articles as a proxy or is he under the same sort of restrictions as a banned user would be in cases where others would work as his proxy and redirect articles on his behalf? He has recently asked another user to make some redirects on articles where the other user had not acted in the previous month and three weeks (roughly) until encouraged to redirect by TTN. Thank you for the clarification in advance. (for further information and discussion please see Adminstrator's Noticeboard thread on TTN

Response to sg (who's name is really hard for me to spell, forgive me): I believe that's the crux of the problem TTN seems to not be able to initiate discussion per the ruling and bringing them to your attention is similar, in my view, to asking you to act as a proxy to work around the sanction which would be, in my view, terribly ungood behavior. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to sg2: I agree that doing so in the light is better than sneaking around and coordinating it off-wiki, but... the key question remains, is he allowed to initiate such conversation. From my reading of the ruling, it would be no. Its the "initiated by another user" bit that has caused me to ask for clarification. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Neil for providing diffs. (I'm new to this sort of thing.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sgeureka

Speaking metaphorically, arbcom prohibited TTN from bullying the other kids at school, but at the same time took away his right to self-defend when he is the target of bullying (or at least of gross unfairness). This risk was pointed out in the arbcom case, but no solution was offered. TTN asking a teacher for help (who may grant it or not based on their own good judgement) neither automatically makes the teacher TTN's proxy nor does it make TTN the bad guy. So I would like some clarification if (a) TTN is allowed to point out problematic articles/edits without editing or tagging the articles himself, (b) if I am allowed to agree with TTN's reasoning and (c) if I am allowed to edit problematic articles/edits. If the answer is yes to all three questions, there shouldn't be a problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Kyaa: sg stands for Stargate, Eureka is the famous exclamation, long story. ;-) And just like bringing up an issue at a noticeboard or pointing out a recurring typo that needs fixing, I see nothing wrong in pointing out articles that fail a policy when you're prohibited doing so via the usual channels (tagging and discussing). I guess you'd agree that this transparent action is better than TTN contacting me via email about his "troubles" (which he never did, but I wouldn't hold it against him - if he can't even do the most trivial things without risking a witch hunt against him). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum I think I've got a better illustration of the situation, at least as far as I am involved: If someone disallows the boy who cried wolf to ever (publicly) cry wolf again, may the boy (privately) whipser in my ear that he sees a wolf, and am I allowed to chase the wolf off when I see fit? Note that most people never had an issue with how I dealt with wolves before. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Neil

• Relevant diffs:
  • [128] - asking another user to redirect a number of character articles (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [129] - suggesting a merge of character articles to another user (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [130] - expressed intent to keep such suggestions off-Wiki in future
• Suggest either an extention to the probation, a month's block, or a final warning prior to a year's block. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

Relevant recent discussions in chronological order:

• TTN and notability tagging?
• And so it begins again.
• Closure
• TTN, again.

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

Really, what part of He is free to contribute on the talk pages is so difficult to understand? I don't see that any diff provided is on anything other than a talk page.Kww (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I read that ruling as referring to article-space talk pages, not as an invitation to post on user-space talk pages requesting proxy edits. Catchpole (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"TTN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." Neıl ☎ 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil's quote still only restricts edits on article and project pages. He is free to lobby on talk pages for others to make edits on article and project pages.Kww (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Moreover, it would be very helpful if Arbcom could remind those who are disruptively undoing TTN's earlier efforts that this violates the spirit of the ruling. Asking for assistance in restoring good faith redirects firmly grounded in policy because of a disruptive editing pattern is certainly reasonable. Also, arbcom needs to make it clear that the ruling was not a victory for one side nor the other in the ongoing debate about notability for topics of fiction. (sorry to butt in your statement page Kww; I just agree with everything you said here.) Eusebeus (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Petitioning for an article to be merged without discussion and pointing out specifically that he himself cannot do it so he needs someone else to is not promoting good faith, it's bypassing the restriction placed on him by simply adding a middle man to do it instead. In effect this negates the whole purpose of limiting him.

Additionally his comments that he should probably resort to such communication in secret does not help good faith either, but instead paints that he's well aware that his actions are in violation: if they weren't, he wouldn't have anything to even worry about to consider such an alternative, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that ... I might take steps to avoid getting hauled in front of Arbcom every two days, even if Arbcom cleared me of wrongdoing every time.Kww (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know taking steps to avoid Arbcom appearances could end badly, as the "Wikilobby" drama reminds us. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can, which is why I hope Arbcom puts a stop to these efforts to drive TTN underground. Kww (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it can make TTN realize that he has to work under the restrictions it placed on him, not attempt to find loopholes and proxies to do the sort of things that got him under editting restrictions in the first place. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This neglects to recognize that TTN's problem was style, not content. His identification of bad articles that needed to be redirected was somewhere around 99% accurate. His effort to bulldoze his way through was what caused the trouble.Kww (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Benjiboi: appeal of topic ban on Matt Sanchez

See AE noticeboard thread and topic-ban appeal

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

• Benjiboi (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) (initiator)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), (topic-banning admin) notification
• Durova (talk · contribs) (editor central in AE threads) notification

Statement by Benjiboi

I request a complete lift and reversal of the indefinite topic ban against me on Matt Sanchez. I'm quite disappointed at having to take this step to clear my name and worked to avoid having to take this step and indicated so during the AE discussion.[131] I'm surprised that my contributions to Wikipedia was treated in this manner and the same assuming of good faith we extend to all others seemed to evaporate towards me despite my obvious attempts to communicate civilly and directly.[132] I feel the blocking admin may have been personally invested in driving me away from the article by their involvement in numerous OTRS tickets from banned user Bluemarine (who is one of Matt Sanchez's accounts) and making edits on Sanchez's behalf. I appreciate the work that OTRS volunteers do and that they are trying to work with someone who earned a community RfC and Arbcom ban for voluminous and personal attacks amongst other issues. However, despite Sanchez's assertions that I, and others, are a part of a "radical left-leaning fringe that is the LGBT is hell bent on venting frustrations through the article", many editors, including admins and LGBT editors, worked to follow policy and work with Sanchez and tried to look past his personal attacks and unique style of writing accusatory statements. When information and verifiable statements at odds with Sanchez's views were presented he routinely would fill up the talk page sometimes contradicting himself. It's understandable for someone to want their biography to only show them in the best possible light but topic-banning editors because the subject of the article doesn't like their tone[133] doesn't seem like a inspiring direction for the project and in Sanchez's case the list of user's he's found problematic would quickly add up.

In short, the article exists because his notability is as a former gay porn star who became a marine and then the poster-child for US social conservatives thus placing Sanchez in the center of several current American culture wars including issues of gays in the military. (As referenced by the Military Times as a "don't ask, don't tell" issue) I personally don't care about his sexuality or expression thereof, I do care about presenting sexuality issues correctly and as factually as possible. In addition, I felt I was helping Sanchez avoid abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion and personal gain by insisting that claims be reliably sourced.

The other reason his case received national attention was that it was revealed he also was a "gay" escort (an escort for men who have sex with men) who mostly advertised in gay male magazines with Sanchez stating he was an escort (prostitute) on the internationally broadcast Fox News Channel Hannity & Colmes show. Sanchez stated (in the Arbcom case and elsewhere on wiki) that he later retracted his statements but no proof of that retraction seems to have ever been presented to balance out his earlier statements. I have regularly and consistently stressed than anything about his escort work has to be well sourced and neutral. I believe he is now being coached how to self-publish retractions on his blog. I can certainly see why Sanchez wouldn't want anyone around who was basically saying we print what's verifiable not just what you'd like. It wasn't until Sanchez's Arbcom ban and the related AfD during his Arbcom case that the circular talk page dynamic seemed to disappear. In fairness, he may have also been targeted by SPAs but that's not a license to abuse those you disagree with. Once Sanchez was banned I worked to clean up the talk page, archives and keep the discussion constructive and as focussed as possible in a collaborative fashion. (See January's archive for instance.) Even when folks disagreed we mostly stayed constructive and tried to find workable solutions. My contributions were mostly constructive and it would we a stretch to paint me as simply trying to disrupt or otherwise compromise Wikipedia's policies.

JzG (Guy), in what I feel was a somewhat condescending, impatient, confrontational and personal manner, bordering on uncivil, IMHO, rather than simply warning me in any manner suggested instead I be topic-banned without giving me any notice I had breached policy or was heading in a bad direction. When I responded to all the stated concerns he repeated that this ban was really no big deal.[134] When I sought guidance I was told I should take my case to JzG (Guy) directly to see what it would take to have the ban lifted.[135] He deleted the request only stating " Discussion at AE board" in the edit summary.[136] Later JzG (Guy) admitted he was unwilling to budge on the issue. I sent two email to the Arbcom elist per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee stating

“ I write with a bit of a heavy heart as this, to me, is the last way I would have wanted to be introduced to all of you. Sadly I'm hitting a bit of a roadblock and would like some guidance or assistance in addressing my ban. Rather than rehashing the whole affair I feel I've addressed the concerns raised and had asked (nicely) for this to be lifted. The admin has been rather unsupportive and their userpage has an ominous posting about not causing them stress so I'm unclear what my options are and feel if this ban is to stay over my head I'll likely just pack it all in instead. All help appreciated. ”

I got no response.

Finally, I believe it states, "[E]ditors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement...in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals." If I've overstepped a line or indeed violated some policy then please point it out, perhaps a warning would have served the purpose of ensuring the "tone" of edits remained civil and constructive. I wish it had been considered and attempted, instead I have been shown what I consider to be disrespect and a leap of bad faith. Banjeboi 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline prior to topic-ban

4 March
Amongst other {{editprotected}} requests, a request was made by Durova to remove wording that could have been reworded instead; within that request was that the reference was to content hosted at YouTube. There didn't seem to be an emphasis or effort to improve the wording to clarify that the gay escort didn't refer to Sanchez, just to remove it altogether. This request was later struck by the same editor who later filed the AE request that started all this. Durova struck the request as it was pointed out they were mistaken and that it wasn't YouTube after all.

21 March
(19:56, 21 March 2008)
JzG (Guy) edits Sanchez article removing (rather than rewording) problem phrase (it has since been re-added and reworded). And removing a source rather than correctly attributing to the original source.

(22:50, 21 March 2008)
JzG (Guy) opens ArbCom case amendment to allow Bluemarine (Matt Sanchez) to comment on the Matt Sanchez talk page as "over a dozen" OTRS tickets (averaging two per week) since Sanchez's 7 Feb Arbcom ban. He also alleges that the protected article has been edited with an a agenda and other editors should be monitored. The request is withdrawn as Sanchez again evades his ban. Although arguably incomplete some of his socks have been tagged and others have been logged into the Arbcom case.

22 March
(09:10, 22 March 2008)
Durova first posts to the talk page regarding YouTube as source concern; they state they are making "one last effort" but no previous efforts to bring up sourcing in the article seem to be evident. They also don't suggest, even as an option, to source to the original publisher. Nothing seems to suggest that anyone would have opposed fixing the sourcing and, in fact, it has since been done.

(23:03, 22 March 2008)
Durova files noticeboard AE request to remove Youtube links and "potentially defamatory claims that reference them be removed from the article". When asked why posting to the AE board they respond, "Two editors consistently oppose, and are filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments that give passersby the mistaken impression that this is a content dispute. But this isn't a content issue; copyright is bright line policy. I am on the verge of filing a separate AE thread against one of those editors for tendentiousness, incivility, and disruption." I feel however that this was presented as we need to remove all YouTube citations and this, IMHO, was the first that this was brought up. Also they painted me as "filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments that give passersby the mistaken impression that this is a content dispute". Instead of approaching the issue as we need to fix this sourcing it was, IMHO, presented as this needs to also be removed. After months of Sanchez's thwarting progress it was quite frustrating to be accused of the very same thing. Subsequently the refs have been amended to the original publishers as I would have readily agreed had it been presented as such. I was also not given any indication that I was in any way violating BLP (or any policy), nor was I notified in any way that I was being discussed on an Admin board. Note: the links have been updated to the original source and no "potentially defamatory claims" from those sources seem to have been found although many other items that show the subject in a less than flattering light have been removed or reworked.

23 March
'(11:19, 23 March 2008)
Admin JzG (Guy) proposes myself and another editor be topic-banned "for consistent failure to follow WP:BLP". No notice was given to me or any indication that I was being considered for a ban or that I had violated any policy.

Statement by JzG

The Arbitration Committee is well aware, I think, of the long-term issues of accuracy and neutrality in Matt Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sanchez, aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is banned and therefore restricted to using OTRS to request changes to the article. This has resulted in an absolute barrage of email, much of it related to edits made by Benjiboi and Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (now indefinitely blocked for other reasons).

The reason I advocated a topic ban was that Sanchez complained specifically about Benjiboi's edits and their neutrality, and because Sanchez vehemently denies the "escort" characterisation which Benjiboi is so determined to include. A situation with a banned article subject, WP:BLP concerns, what appears to be selective reporting in the outside world, and obsession with including problematic content, is pretty close to impossible to manage.

I said right up front that I don't consider this a black mark against Benjiboi, we just don't need the hassle of tens of emails a day from an extremely agitated subject. We've had well over a hundred emails in total.

Some OTRS tickets related to this:

• VRTS ticket # 2007041410014448 (most of the emails merged here)
• VRTS ticket # 2008020910013442
• VRTS ticket # 2008022710022631
• VRTS ticket # 2008032910004467

I know this is going to sound like Morton's Fork, but the main reason I am so strongly opposed to Benjiboi editing that article, is that he is so very determined to do so. We do not need obsessive editors on WP:BLP articles. This was not my call alone, but it's true that not many were involved. Durova was one, and she also has long experience of the Sanchez article.

If article probation is to mean anything at all, then it must surely mean that people dealing with a sensitive article (and an angry subject) can request others to leave it alone, and expect to have that request stick. In this case, requesting did not work, so we had a topic ban, and now this. What is so very very important about the Sanchez article that Benjiboi must be allowed to contribute despite the subject's clear preference otherwise?

Note to Jpgordon

Matt Sanchez has made many requests, and a decent proportion of them have been rejected as mere interpretations of weight. The "escort" business is only one of a number of contentious issues, most of which have now been settled. Sanchez has never had a right of veto over the content and I've several times told him "no" in no uncertain terms. This is not about Benjiboi's advocacy of one particular edit, either, it's about a long-standing pattern of advocacy on that article, and yes, any editor who showed such a pattern of edits would cause the same problem, because the pattern of edits and talk page comments reveals an agenda, and Wikipedia (especially Wikipedia biographies) is not the place to pursue an agenda. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Comments by others and discussion on above

---

Comment: The subject has been banned from Wikipedia for his homophobic attacks on gay editors, including Benjiboi. Via the subject's year long ban from Wikipedia, the subject has no rights to an article about him, just as Ann Coulter has no rights to the article about her. Benji is one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia. Characterizing him as obsessed with the Sanchez article is absurd. His contibs history proves that. If he's obsessed with anything, it would be Wikipedia in general and not poor little ole Matt Sanchez. Benji works on many articles at once. Just a look at his talk page right now shows "notes to self" all over it referencing the many articles he's working on. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez's ludicrous and defamatory attacks on gays has no bearing on who gets to edit the Matt Sanchez article. Mr. Sanchez, to be indelicate, can shove his bigoted views up his own ass. There is obsessive behavior (the history is demonstrated and incontrovertible) coming from multiple sides here. To be as un-PC as possible: It's odd that most of the "pushing" to include negative material comes from self-admitted homosexual editors. The whole thing has a tit-for-tat retaliatory feel, and we don't need that shit. Before anyone screams "Oh my God, Lawrence hates the LGBTers," my best friend went from Mr. to Ms., and I love her still, one of my best friends in the world is as gay as people can possibly be, and I was the one that assembled the bulk of the evidence displaying the absurd homophobic attacks here by Sanchez. However, "Wikipedia" doesn't need an evangelical war of The Gays Vs. Sanchez and Sanchez Vs. The Gays. His article is so heavily watched now that any attempts to whitewash or scrub the article of his sourced and factual history of performing in gay pornography, and doing some gay escort work (both points which seem to be points of contention) won't happen. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to JzG's statement. While I appreciate the position OTRS volunteers are put in I seem to be getting punished for Sanchez (yet again) gaming the system. I'm not an OTRS volunteer and have no access to the emails linked above so have no clue what Sanchez wrote but all my contributions are quite evident in the article and talk page history. I may be wrong here but I don't recall anyone, ever, asking me not to edit there prior to this surprise ban. No one politely asided me to indicate that sadly Wikipedia does topic-ban editors primarily because the subject prefers them not to. I'm also not "determined" or "obsessed" to include anything that isn't true and reliably sourced. As I've stated a few times in the AE threads I have no problem following policies and if I made an error simply (civilly) point it out.

Over a hundred emails in two months? Doesn't that seem to indicate that just maybe, yet again, Sanchez is the primary source of this drama and, yet again, instead of dealing with him firmly to set boundaries the frustration is applied elsewhere. A variance was being created for Sanchez so he could edit on the talk page but was dropped because he wasn't willing or able to refrain from again evading his ban. If this situation is "close to impossible to manage" it's not by my doing and I'm more than willing to abide by policies and, in fact, have frequently taken bios to the BLP board as well as assisted other bios listed there. The same courtesy shown to obvious vandals didn't seem to be extended to myself. This ban was stated as dealing with reliable sourcing on the AE board and had it been presented as such in the first place on the talk page as "we need to correct these sources to the original sources" I don't think anyone would have disagreed. Banjeboi 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Punished? I don't think so. There are over two million articles you can edit without causing problems of apparent militant advocacy and upsetting the subject. You're not banned from Wikipedia, you are free to edit on any subject you like except Matt Sanchez, who is, it must be said, an incredibly minor figure. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the key part is that this is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit".. including any article so that argument is moot. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You think? Even banned and blocked and topic banned and WP:COI editors? Guy (Help!) 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I think it's punishment and a black mark against myself even if you do not, and I have not been blocked or otherwise banned. You seem to put a lot of weight on what Sanchez, a community banned and blocked (and COI) editor who continues to evade bans even this week, while dismissing my concerns as really not a big deal. Banjeboi 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Very little, actually, but I do put a good deal of weight on what article subjects in general have to say, at least to the point of ensuring that we don't actively piss them off and make more enemies. Your tireless advocacy of the strongly disputed and not obviously important "escort" factoid, which has no significant secondary sources, is one example of why I don't think you should be editing this particular biography; I don't feel you are sufficiently dispassionate about the subject. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree that BLP subjects should be given due consideration and they are considered experts on themselves. In this case, it's hardly my contributions that have "pissed him off" or put him on a path of being an enemy. The campaign against POV and fringe warriors is basically commendable but I resent being painted as such. I just happen to consistently advocate for civility and RS's which Sanchez didn't care for unless it was to his favor. If he didn't like something it was a barrage of invective and complaints, most of it groundless. My "tireless advocacy" was little more than simply ensuring that due process of vetting "the strongly disputed and not obviously important "escort" factoid" to see what, if anything, should be included and how. Since you seem convinced that I was somehow invested in the escorting point of information you may wish to also note that it was a source of debate long before I ever showed up and even after I had be banned and all previous discussion archived away. Again, personally, I don't care that much, I never did and still don't. I was slow to edit the article and when I did I also went slowly and worked toward consensus as a general rule. This whole AE incident started as a sourcing concern and those were corrected, and would have been trouble-free had they been clearly presented as such in the first place. To me, it sounds like he's been sequestered to OTRS tickets and is now abusing that avenue in a similar fashion (volume).

If I "tirelessly advocated" for anything it was to stop the nonsense both from Sanchez and from those making attacks against him. I have sought consensus on how to deal with the escorting material and never advocated for including unless it was solid. What I objected to was silencing the debate on the basis we don't talk about something the subject doesn't like. During this process here I again noted that we have statements he had done escorting but as of yet there doesn't seem to be anything presented in reliable sources that he denies it, if he's self-published something usable then presenting it on the talk page would probably be helpful. I don't want my ban lifted so I can edit that article but because I feel it was wrong in the first place. Banjeboi 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

The original WP:AE report that triggered the topic ban by JzG is archived here. (I closed this report.) The follow-up discussion of Benjiboi's protest is archived here. 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Lawrence

Having been involved with this for a long time myself I have to agree with Guy's assessment, unfortunately. All the regulars on Matt Sanchez should find some other pages to work on. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

It is disappointing to see gaps in Benjiboi's presentation. Actually we had substantial discussion about YouTube hostings prior to 22 March. The problems there were contributory copyright infringement, as laid forth in Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP were also relevant. The article was sourcing negative information about a living subject to copyvio hostings at YouTube. I would have had no problem with citing such material to a legitimate hosting or a transcript, but linking to copyright infringements places WMF at risk of a lawsuit. Per BLP, negative text in the article that had no legitimate citation needed to be removed, at least temporarily, until a legitimate hosting or a show transcript could be found.

I first raised these issues on 29 February:

Durova: Videos can be edited and digitally altered in misleading ways, so a video hosted on a blog isn't reliable either. That goes for YouTube too, which is a point I hadn't raised yet. I'm not taking any partisan position here. Count the number of Blogspot and YouTube links I've removed in my last thousand edits. Or double check with the noticeboard.[137]

Benjiboi is aware of that statement; he replied an hour later.[138] I responded again.[139]

The next day he continued the thread as follows:

Benjiboi: Disagree completely. The world was agreed to be flat at one point as well, now we have better information that just maybe that isn't accurate. New media sources continue to evolve and wikipedia continues to keep up with those changes, sometimes successfully. I again assert that both the video of Sanchez doing what he says he does and the content which no one seems to dispute can be used and if semantics is an issue address those concerns. Dismissing something out of hand doesn't make for better articles.[140]

With that statement, Benjiboi was dismissing the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry precedent on contributory copyright infringement as semantics, which is a hypothesis that would really be better to test on his own website where he bears the consequences, than on WMF's website where the Foundation bears the consequences. He is also attempting to lecture me about new media. Although I was tempted to reply with a link to my dozens of featured picture credits, instead I just referred him to a noticeboard for third party feedback:

Durova: You are welcome to take advantage of this full protection to see whether the volunteers at WP:BLPN confirm your proposal regarding sources.[141]

His reply was sarcastic:

Benjiboi: Lovely. How special of you to make suggestions for my volunteering.[142]

Again on March 4 I mentioned the YouTube problem at another thread. Here is a link to that thread, which gives a good picture of how difficult even the simplest changes had become: Talk:Matt_Sanchez/Archive_18#Wall_of_Shame_photo_edit_request. Another relevant thread, immediately before the WP:AE request: Talk:Matt_Sanchez/Archive_18#Ahem. It was partly due to the difficulty of getting even bright line policy edits implemented that, after waiting nearly a full month to settle obvious BLP and copyright issues that ought to have been handled immediately, I resorted to AE for an edit request.

Also, contrary to Benjiboi's assertions, I did offer alternative citation options. It wasn't my responsibility to spell out these things and I was somewhat concerned that this would appear patronizing, but I wanted to be perfectly fair:

Durova: Now to state this for clarity: there are other ways besides YouTube to cite a major news broadcast. It's been nearly a full month since I first raised this point about YouTube in late February so I hope the editors who wish to retain the underlying information have been at work obtaining official transcripts of the relevant broadcasts.[143]

Overall, Benjiboi's participation has had several tendentious traits. I'll supply examples of the others if requested, but this presentation is already long:

• Emphasizing the article subject's career in pornography.
• Asserting that the article subject is or was a male escort; in other words, a prostitute.
• Downplaying the subject's military career.
• Downplaying the subject's journalism career.

I wish to draw the Committee's attention to Benjiboi's insistence, even here on this page, upon claiming that Matt Sanchez was an escort. Per David Shankbone's actions at Michael Lucas (director), that highly damaging assertion is to be made with particular caution even when the sources are impeccable. At Matt Sanchez it was being sourced in article text to non-notable blogs. Benjiboi fiercely defended that practice. We had several exchanges about it. Here's one example:

Durova: (I had already given examples of what sorts of blog citations would be acceptable, and why the particular one under discussion was not). Benjiboi, blogs as sources are a settled matter; I remove inappropriate blog citations all the time. That's unacceptable per both WP:RS and WP:BLP. If you have any doubts about my good faith and fairness, please take your doubts to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.[144]

Benjiboi:"blogs as sources are a settled matter" umm hardly. Just because many blogs are less than reliable certainly some are fine. Just wondering are you disputing any of the information as true? If so perhaps you could simply remove the ref that so distresses this strict interpretation as all blogs are bad thinking. Did you notice that the post in question is a video of - Sanchez conducting an interview? Please. The reality police are calling.[145]

At WP:AE I was on the fence about Benjiboi's topic ban and afterward I even offered to open a thread myself to lift his ban after one month if no further problems arose. Here is the latest repetition of that offer, where on April 20 I offered to open the request three days early.[146] Instead of replying he opened this request, where ne makes no mention of these overtures, misrepresents my involvement, and either does not recognize or does not understand the underlying policy and copyright issues at stake. That looks, unfortunately, like a preview of what to expect if his topic ban is lifted. Although I would like to support his return, his presentation renews my concerns.

---

One further statement for the record. I absolutely do not endorse Matt Sanchez's statements about gay people or the particular insults he has directed at some of the people who edited this article. That was one of the reasons I supported Mr. Sanchez's siteban. Privately, I strongly endorse LGBT rights (straight but not narrow). When I put on my Wikipedian hat I set personal politics on a shelf and apply dry policy analysis. I have answered content RFCs for Michael Moore, Matt Sanchez and Michael Lucas (director) on exactly the same neutral basis. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Durova's comments. I'm sorry if you felt I was purposely misleading in any way. Firstly, I included you as your actions started the whole AE thread thus my ban. I didn't mean to imply that was your intent. To answer your assertion that there are "gaps", the querty content issue was focussed on blogs as reliable sources not on YouTube as a reliable source. The answer in both cases should be to source to the original broadcaster rather than the site simply hosting the content. In the discussion, in fairness, YouTube was mentioned so could be seen as where the issue arose. To my point the content didn't seem to be presented as "this sourcing needs to be corrected" as much as "this content has to be deleted". I wouldn't have added the querty blog except that it seemed terribly non-controversial to state that the Sanchez had conducted a video interview as a vlogger and here is that vlog. I still disagree that all blogs and vlogs are considered unreliable and will decline to entangle myself in copyright discussions. I also felt the suggestion that I should shop the idea of was this a reliable source around as faulty as the concensus was that the content wasn't needed and if it wasn't considered a reliable source then forum-shopping seemed innappropriate to me. I felt your statement at that time was being sarcastic towards me and I responded in kind, that was a mistake. Also, just to clarify I have no website(s) where I engage in any wikipedia activity nor do I have any interest in Sanchez past the content of the article on this site.

I do want to point out that your "offer alternative citation options" came twenty minutes after you started the AE thread. This might be simple misunderstandings on a heated talk page but if your attempt was to correct the sourcing it wasn't clear to me so I apologize.

As for your highlights of my "tendentious traits" in regards to that article his notability, as far as reliable sourcing is concerned, is tied to his past porn career, this isn't a porn bio so shouldn't look like one but for those looking for that information we should cover it appropriately and with balance. This is tied directly to his military and journalism careers. We have plenty of sources for the adult entertainment career but talk page concensus is that he is likely no longer in the military with the only reason we don't state so is we have no reliable source stating that he no longer is. As for his journalism, I don't believe I've ever downplayed his journalism career and as is evident from the querty blog and other content (including Sanchez's vlog channel on YouTube) I was trying to add more information. I don't recall doing anything but trying to stick with wikipedia standards on whether he should be called a war-blogger or whatever was most appropriate and similar discussions continued after I was banned. I even listed the blog posts added to the article as examples of his work so that interested editors could try to find some representative quotes to use.

As for his escorting I really don't care that much if he did or didn't. He said he did, the incident that made him nationally known certainly said he did and there were lengthy discussions on primary vs secondary sources. The issue seemed far from settled but you've "boldly" archived all of it so until the next person brings it up or a new source covers it it can be anywhere else but on his article. Your links about "Benjiboi's insistence, even here on this page, upon claiming that Matt Sanchez was an escort. ... At Matt Sanchez it was being sourced in article text to non-notable blogs. Benjiboi fiercely defended that practice. We had several exchanges about it. Here's one example:" is completely off-base. First that is the qwerty blog thread about Sanchez being a vlogger interviewing someone else who was an escort not anything having to do with Sanchez himself escorting; also the thrust of adding that content was to help anchor him as covering the CPAC convention as a vlogger as well as that he had been corresponding with the interviewee while Sanchez was in the war zones, none of it seemed controversial to me. Secondly, when the escorting topics were brought up, I worked toward talkpage consensus on what information to add about the escorting as well as what wording. We never had consensus and I opposed adding anything to the article until there was some agreement.

Finally, as to your offers to help lift my ban I thanked you for your support, period. I have been working on my above statement ever since the second AE thread closed and this route was presented as the only way for me to overturn an admin topic ban. This has caused me more stress than any of the on-wiki homophobia I've dealt with and I only was able to finish it today, apologies if my timing isn't to your liking but I decided months ago to take a break from my volunteering here whenever I was feeling stressed and getting banned from any article without any heads up that I was on thin ice has made me reconsider if my time has been worth it. Banjeboi 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of ground is covered there, so with space in mind I'll target this reply to just a few points. There was a concern among some editors that tangential mentions of other people's escort work were being abused per Wikipedia:Coatrack with ambiguous syntax to suggest that Mr. Sanchez was also an escort. At BLP articles, citation of blogs other than the subject's own is a delicate matter under the best of circumstances, and this was being handled very indelicately under adverse circumstances. If you thought my tone was sarcastic I wish you had brought the concern to my attention rather than engage in tit-for-tat. It has never been my intention to give offense, and those replies left me at a loss for what else to do. I hoped that had just been a bad day for you so I waited several weeks to pursue the matter seriously again, but obviously this kind of issue can't wait forever. If you can't trust me and won't seek third opinions, where else can I go? Most straight men wouldn't touch this topic with a ten inch pole.

Part of the problem when editorial discussion becomes too contentious is that outside opinions are harder to obtain. Here's one candid statement from earlier this month:

Cleo123: As an outsider, here in response to the notice at WP:BLPN - I, too, support the phrasing created by Durova and Abecedare. Insistence on the bizarre and inadequately sourced phraseology "embedded blogger" strikes me as an attempt to diminish sourced professional accomplishments, which is POV. Wow! I can't believe something so obvious and clear cut as the man's profession is the subject of such heated debate. Quick! Get me off of this page! LOL! Never! Never to return! LOL! You all have my sympathies!May the Wiki force be with you![147]

Lastly, I do not endorse JzG's assertion that Mr. Sanchez's personal opinions about who should or shouldn't edit the article ought to have any bearing. It doesn't matter to me (or, I hope, to the Committee) what any individual editor's sexual orientation is. What does matter is whether someone's contributions are productive and consistent with policy. Durova^Charge! 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack concerns are certainly valid, I wish it had been brought up in advance on the talk page as other had been simply as "the article states _____" but per coatrack we should reword to _____ so to remain more NPOV. That's how we've been able to clean up a lot of other problems there. Frankly, I thought Sanchez's interviewing another blogger, on the anniversary and at the same event of Sanchez's national fame (the CPAC convention/awards), who had gone through nearly identical experience as Sanchez (conservative voice being outed as a gay adult entertainer) could have made for a good compare/contrast launching point. As for editor's being straight or any gender or sexuality it really didn't cross my mind and rarely does. I realize most people have more traditional heterosexist and gender binary ideas (people are "either strait or gay" and either "male or female") so I rarely get into those areas unless the discussion seems to be of value.

I think I covered that I had no issues with his writing/blogging/journalism career being covered, whatever career title policies stated it be termed. Pretty consistently I've advocated letting reliable sources speak for themselves as a way to stop the SPA abuse and other nonsense. I also felt we were knee deep in experienced editors lately so someone would come up with a way to deem what was most appropriate, I was certainly in no rush. As was evident from discussions like Sanchez is not a writer, I wasn't terribly bothered one way or another but moved to simply keep it accurate, organized and move on. He's a writer, yes, move on. Right below that section is Work as an escort, where my take on the whole escorting/prostitution issue is pretty evident to lean on what reliable sources state and presenting the information neutrally. Also it's fairly evident that this was an issue that many editors besides myself also felt wasn't resolved but others can judge for themselves. Banjeboi 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for those replies. I agree that Matt Sanchez is no saint and negative information has a place in the article. My concern is that it be properly sourced and overall balanced. This page has been a battleground far too long; I'd like to see it on the same footing as any other BLP. Durova^Charge! 10:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I agree that it needs a lot of work still, I waited a while before I did much until I could suss out what we actually had to work with (trying to see the content through all the drama). When I started I did more simple things like adding sections and infobox. I've also learned to look for the overall arch on bios as well and Sanchez seems to be media person of sorts, an actor, editorializer and now doing reporting/commentaries on blogs, vlogs and apparently overseas TV. I liken him to other political commentators and think his views should be expressed with some quotes so he "speaks" for himself. To me the answer was almost never to delete content to achieve balance but add content like expanding the military and Columbia sections so the stuff Sanchez deems negative (adult entertainer) isn't lost but minimized as a part of a past career. I've said before that if he just let others build the article it would be so much better. Banjeboi 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Cleo123's comment above used to illustrate how difficult it was to solicit outside opinions when "editorial discussion becomes too contentious" should be seen in context. All talkpage contributions from myself had been archived away prior to that comment. This perhaps would support that the topic itself is controversial with or without my involvement. Banjeboi 18:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Rushdittobot

Benjiboi wrote:

Although I can see how you might piece together the above timeline it's not one I've ever seen. Instead most of the accounts I've read have been more along the lines that his former clients or at least those who claimed to be his former clients blew the whistle to the bloggers.

Former Matt Sanchez clients have made statements? Where?

Benjiboi is the only person to describe Sanchez as a vlogger. What does that mean? And does he have a source? I haven't found one anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushdittobot (talk • contribs) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Rushdittobot. It doesn't matter where those former clients, or more precisely those who claimed to be former clients made any statements unless it's in a reliable source that we can use. I've yet to see any usable content of that nature but if it interests you take it to the article's talk page, I imagine you'll get the same answer. On YouTube Matt has his own vlogging channel. A vlogger is a blogger who also does video blogs, hardly a controversial term but if it just seems off-base then, again, take it to that talk page, this forum is not to make cases for or against article content. I will assume good faith that you just happenned along that talkpage thread on Thatcher's talkpage and naturally decided that you should comment here. Sadly, the experience with that article has been socks both for and against Sanchez and this seems to be along those lines. Banjeboi 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Rushdittobot (talk · contribs) is actually Brianlandeche‎ (talk · contribs) who has been indef blocked for proxy-editing for banned/blocked user Bluemarine (talk · contribs) (Matt Sanchez). Banjeboi 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Neil

Re jpgordon's statement below: ..with Benji crossed off and the new editor's name written in crayon... That's a rather incivil, unfair and inappropriate comment from a sitting Arbitrator. Would appreciate that being excised. Neıl ☎ 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a pretty fair assessment, as Sanchez has moved on to his next targets, with the same shopworn allegations. Aleta and I have apparently been identified as "enemies" in the most recent OTRS complaint by a Sanchez proxy[148]. Sanchez appears to be determined to dictate how his Wikipedia biography is written, with persistent attempts to whitewash well-sourced but inconvenient facts, and to emphasize non-notable current activities. I continue to support omitting the more contentious discussions of his alleged escorting career (it's not particularly well-sourced, and the only sources that discuss his repeated denials are not considered reliable, presenting an undue weight/coatrack concern), but I don't support turning the article into a public-relations stunt for Sanchez either.

I've argued for the deletion of this article[149] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez (3rd nomination), but consensus was not on my side. Perhaps my suggestion of a focus change on the article should be reconsidered, although I don't think that I (or any of the other regular editors of the article) should be involved in its development. Horologium (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The whole point of an article probation is to reduce the thrashing and tsuris associated with heated topics. It's not the faithless editors who have to worry about article probation; they get taken care of in other fashions. Good editors, however, can also cause problems, sometimes by their very presence. That their intentions are good, and that their history is sterling, does not alter the fact that their work on specific articles can be disruptive (or can be part of a cycle that leads to disruption.) My initial inclination is to let the ban stand; it's not a "black mark" against Benji, but rather a recognition that his presence on that article is causing more problems than it is worth. On the other hand, if another editor were to come to the article, and do the same sort of work Benji's been doing, Mr Sanchez' stream of OTRS requests would resume, with Benji crossed off and the new editor's name written in crayon. So this isn't about Benji, but about the material itself, which either belongs or does not belong in the article, regardless of Mr Sanchez' feelings. This means the only question for Benji is, "can you continue the edit the article while respecting our BLP, NPOV, V, etc requirements?" As far as OTRS is concerned, if Mr Sanchez' requests are valid, they should be respected; if not, they should be politely declined the first time, and ignored after that; he certainly doesn't get to dictate who edits the article about him. I can't imagine this is the first time someone has been persistent trying to get their way via OTRS; what's the usual way of dealing with repeat complainants? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for appeal: Topic ban of Thomas Basboll

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

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified

Statement by Thomas Basboll

Raul654 has imposed a topic ban as sanctioned by ArbCom's recent ruling in the case on 9/11 conspiracy theories (see discussion at at AE). I do not consider myself a POV pusher (nor, it should go without saying, a conspiracy theorist or "truther"). I have devoted my time here (increasingly narrowly) as a good-faith single-purpose editor to articles related the collapse of the WTC, which interests me both from a technical, engineering point of view and as an episode in the philosophy, history and sociology of knowledge. I consider the WTC collapse article to be mainly an article on an engineering topic, and the controlled demolition hypothesis article to be mainly an article about a fringe hypothesis (comparable to, say, memory of water and, until recently, ball lightning, a phenomenon whose status is changing). I have edited them as such, in accordance with what I know, and based on (to my mind) reasonable interpretations of reliable sources.

I have behaved civily in all discussions, and was in this case implementing what I saw as an emerging consensus (from a week-long poll) in good faith, and explicitly noted that anyone could revert it if they thought I was jumping the gun [150]. Taking a longer view, my editing on these articles has been overwhelmingly accepted by consensus. The difference between the two versions being discussed in this particular case is very small. (This, for example, gives an indication of the difference between my proposal and Jehochman's; note that the bulk of my allegedly POV-pushing edit, namely, the merger of the overview section with the lead, has been preserved.) It is certainly a far cry from the sorts of claims that are normally associated with 9/11 CT POV-pushers. Moreover, I am willing to accept either of the two possible solutions. The purpose of the poll was to clearly identify the consensus in order to make it easier to maintain the page in the face of predictable edits.

Somewhat ironically, I had already explained this to Jehochman [151] before he lodged his complaint against my "horrendous POV pushing". I now, of course, understand why he didn't contribute to the poll. He seems to believe none of this, i.e., patient, civil ongoing discussion about the scientific status of the hypothesis, should be necessary. I look forward to hearing ArbCom's view on this matter.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum

Mongo has added a number of charges to the Tango Arbitration that are probably better dealt with here. It includes a characteristically false allegation[insinuation]: "Interestingly, during Basboll's hiatus from editing, User:Aude was able to get the disruption free period she needed to get 7 World Trade Center to featured level. I was able to help her with some copywriting issues. It remains the only 9/11 related article to achieve FA status. Basboll made numerous comments regarding the article upon his return to editing. Aude was also able to get Construction of the World Trade Center (a peripheral article) to FA status as well during Basboll's hiatus." Clearly this statement can only begin to make sense if I had actually worked on the articles that he rightly praises Aude's work on. Well, until my departure in May 2007, I had not edited them. I've actually checked back through my contributions. As far as I can tell I had not made a single edit to those articles before my break. It can hardly be in my absence that Aude was able to bring the 7 WTC article up to FA; there is simply no basis for identifying my hiatus with a "disruption free period" in this case. MONGO next suggests that, upon my return, I began to disrupt her work. He cites discussion threads that begin here. Notice that these threads conclude with agreement reached between Aude and I. The article was simply improved. By contrast, during my most recent absence, MONGO had four months to deal with a POV tag issue he insisted on leaving in, thereby ensuring that the article would fail a GA review after I had fixed a series shortcomings not related to CTs that had been identified by the sweeps reviewer. Nothing was done until, upon my return, I raised that as obviously the most pressing issue to deal with. I was immediately called a POV pusher and troll (the cause of what is now the Tango arbitration) and it was suggested that the section, after sitting quietly in the article for four months with a "neutrality disputed" tag, should just be deleted. Here, too, the situation has been resolved after lengthy discussions ... this time in MONGO's absence (block and retirement).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification of the difference that made the difference

Regardless of how AC judges my appeal, it will be useful to clarify the extent to which it is against policy to edit on the wrong side of this difference.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I didn't see the debate, but there is no doubt that Thomas Basboll's presence in those articles, while generally not egregiously uncivil, has had the effect of inflaming disputes and extending debate on matters where there is clearly a strong agreement with a few prominent holdouts, Basboll being one of same. His opinions on 9/11 are definitely not mainstream, and tireless advocacy of non-mainstream positions is one of the things I consider to be a serious problem in Wikipedia right now, so I would be inclined to support Raul's call here. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Are you suggesting that he is "incivil" in a non-egregious way? On what grounds?
2. If there is "no doubt" that he inflames disputes please provide proofs about this.
3. Provide proofs also of "clearly strong agreement" where debates have been extended.
4. Personal opinions are completely irrelevant (and you would have to prove them too).
5. If "advocacy" is so big a problem why don't you provide proofs of advocacy in this case?
6. According to which policy your (unproved) description of the user would be enough for a ban?

Unless you will provide any supporting material yours is just a groundless personal attack.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOUP. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How is someone challenging your view of something you "consider to be a serious problem" and asking for concrete examples to support some fairly broad statements in any way comparable to a distraction tactic? I really don't see a problem with "extending debate" - no article is ever finished and available information always changes. Debate is necessary, and from what I've seen of this user (admittedly not a huge amount), he appears to debate in a relatively constructive manner. I know a lot of people don't agree with this, but I feel firmly that is important in any kind of collaborative project for exclusion to be the resort only when there is absolutely no other option. I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas is a supporter of certain fringe theories. His continued advocacy of those fringe theories in the face of multiple rejections, constitutes disruptive behaviour. Thomas is a perfectly nice fellow, he simply has this fringe view which he cannot bring himself to drop voluntarily. That does not make him evil, but it does make for a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

at the risk of being presumptuous, I'll reword this. I don't think Thomas holds the fringe view, or rather I presume he doesn't. However, he advocates its inclusion to the articles as if it were not a fringe view. This is very difficult to deal with. He is perfectly civil. There are others that advocate the fringe view that support him and make him feel as if inclusion is consensus. This is the problem in that continuous battles to include this material is not conducive to building the encyclopedia with high quality content. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether Thomas rather than you is right about the correct application of WP:UNDUE in the specific cases is a matter to be discussed in the talk page of the articles as required by the Wikipedia editorial process. You can't say that people are "a problem" just because you disagree with their opinions about content issues unless they don't follow the Wikipedia editorial process, which is not the case.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What you DHeyward and others are overlooking is that the edit that led to this ban was not a fringe view. What you are in effect saying here is that because he supports a fringe view then any edit he makes regardless of legitimacy is automatically rejected. This goes to the unanswered question I posed earlier. Was it the intention of Arbcom to stabilise the article by restricting editing to the “official” mainstream viewpoint to the exclusion of other minor but significant viewpoints as well as fringe viewpoints?. Wayne (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect on all accounts. Firstly, I don't view the topic ban as the result of one edit, rather a collection of a body of work that culminated in a final edit, i.e. the "last straw". This was after the arbcom ruling. Secondly, the whole article "Controlled Demilition Hypothesis..." is an article on a notable fringe theory. NPOV does not require that Wikipedia write the article as if this theory were accepted or that it must be written as if it were possible. Rather, the overwhelming scientific consensus view is taht this is a fringe conspriacy theory that has no merit in science or engineering and that it should be treated as such. The NPOV challenge is to present these facts about the hypothesis and not get confused with neutrally advocating the position. The facts are that it's 1) fringe 2) conspiracy theory and 3) overwhelmingly refuted. That's a neutral assessment of the hypothesis. The challenge for editors is to present those facts without advocating the theory and also to present it without disparaging the holders of this view. It is not NPOV to treat it as a legitmate theory. --DHeyward (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets clarify a few points. It was not a "final edit, i.e. the "last straw" but the first edit he made after the Arbcom. The edit did not support any fringe theory but in fact added a sentence which reduced the weight of fringe theories. This sentence was later replaced in the article the day after Thomas' edit was reverted and is still there. This means that the only part of his edit disputed was removing the words "911 conspiracy" from the first sentence and moving it to the second sentence where he expanded it by explaining it is fringe and not accepted. In his edit summary he even said that if you didn't agree with the edit, revert it. Basically a single minor edit of no real importance that had general support got an editor banned. Wayne (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I filed the arbitration enforcement request. Truthers have been trying to whitewash Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center for quite some time, and a variety of editors have been attempting to restore neutral point of view. Id est: [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] At some point people need to understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing fringe theories. The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Let the administrators do their work. User:Thomas Basboll's long contribution history shows three main types of contributions to Wikipedia: 1/ pushing a Truther POV, 2/ attacking MONGO, and 3/ engaging in various processes to support those agendas. We simply do not need single purpose policy violation accounts, no matter how polite they may be. Jehochman ^Talk 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Pokipsy76

We don't determine whether Bigfoot exists by polling Bigfoot believers. We follow what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 08:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do you speak abouth "truthers": can you prove anyone here is a truther?
2. Your opinion about what is the due weight to give to allegedly "fringe" theories is not relevant here, it must be decided by means of consensus.
3. Administrators have not the right to unilaterally decide what is the due weight and who did violate it. It's up to the wikipedia community by means of consensus. --Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved Ncmvocalist

It appears that the editor who has been sanctioned has made good-faith attempts to try to find common ground among two sides - one side who feels that a certain hypothesis is labelled as a conspiracy theory, and another who doesn't. It is irrespective that I am of the opinion that it should be labelled as a conspiracy theory, because this editor in conducting a straw poll, has identified it as a conspiracy theory - whether it is in the first sentence, or the second of the article - although, the second sentence did not give enough emphasis on this I feel.

Although straw polls do not determine consensus, there was some discussion. The editor who filed the Arb-enforcement request made no attempts to participate in the discussion until earlier today, despite being invited to by the editor over 5 days ago, and editing on the article during those 5 days. In his editing, he has in fact on several occasions quoted 'consensus', but because the very policy clearly outlines that consensus can change, he should have engaged in the current discussion.

I find that there is insufficient evidence (of the sanctioned user failing to adhere to the Wikipedia principles outlined) for a sanction to be imposed in this case. However, the editor should've "been counselled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" as per the the remedy imposed by the ArbCom - I see none being given by the admin who imposed this sanction.

I am therefore of the opinion that there appear to be grounds for an appeal here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Xiutwel

It seems to me an emotional decision, blocking an editor, citing one edit.

Raul654 first neglected to give any specific reasons, and later added one edit as "the reason". onetwothree

I think Raul misunderstands the ArbCom decision, and also misunderstands NPOV policy.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing he explaines why involved editors should engage in POV disputes to make sure that the commendable POV (the government does not lie) triumphs over the evil POV's. It is clear that Raul fails to understand how policy, by following its process, leads to good articles. In stead, he starts with "the truth" and sees editors who disagree with him as "the Problem".  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved Wayne

I do not edit the article and do not personally believe the CD theory. I do however participate in talk occasionally as I believe the CD theory should be treated fairly. Comparing the current version with Thomas' version shows a difference of less than half a sentence which is not particularly controversial and was made in good faith after discussion. If we compare Thomas' edit with the original version we see that the current version is now closer to his edit than was the original and in fact his is more critical of the theory than the original was.
There was no warning before banning and no reason given for the ban. The reasons eventually given were confusing and lacked substance. Jehochman says "We don't determine whether Bigfoot exists by polling Bigfoot believers." but this is a gross misrepresentation. The poll was of both supporters and opposition and was primarily a grammatical edit that implied no preference for any conclusion. If Jehochman equates his refusal to take part in the discussion as bias to Thomas' viewpoint then he has no one to blame but himself and Thomas should not be punished for his failure.
Given what I see I have to ask, why is Arbcom enforcement so strictly enforced that it equates to either a.) almost total control of the article by supporters of the official theory or b.) discourages neutral editors from participating? Was it the intention of Arbcom to stabilise the article by restricting editing to the “official” mainstream viewpoint to the exclusion of other minor but significant viewpoints as well as fringe viewpoints? Wayne (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Inclusionist

Raul654 is NOT an "uninvolved" administrator

The arbitration remedy states:

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

Raul654 is NOT an "uninvolved" administrator.

• Raul654 has edited 7 World Trade Center‎, one of the 9/11 articles. Raul654 edits show that he supports the Jehochman's position. [158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173]
• Raul654 deletes a fact tag on the sentence:

"The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage." stating "rv - well known fact" [174]

• Raul654's talk page comments on 7 World Trade Center‎ where he argues against those who support a controlled demolition. [175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182]
• Raul654 reverts 7 World Trade Center‎ then protects the page, in violation of Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools [183]

Raul654 blocks editors he edit wars with

• This involved block is not a single incident either, Raul654 has a history of blocking editors he is edit warring with, in violation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes. See also this ANI.

Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines

Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines, the arbitration remedy states:

"...if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to...amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators"

Raul654 did not warn Thomas before the block: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision".

The arbitration remedy states also:

"Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators"

Thomas Basboll used a "communal approach" in a straw poll. Jehochman lost the straw poll, which meant a majority of editors agreed with Thomas's POV. Instead of attempting to build consensus, Jehochman filed this Arbitration enforcement.

Jehochman's evidence

The seven edits which Jehochman uses as evidence to topic ban Thomas are as follows:

• Thomas "boldly" implementing the results of the straw poll. [184]
• Jehochman reverting Thomas, in an argument over one sentence. In both Jehochman and Thomas's revisions 9/11 conspiracy theories remains in the sentence. Jehochman is reverted by Pokipsy76. [185]
• Jehochman reverts anon 67.164.76.73, which has nothing to do with Thomas. [186]
• Jehochman reverts WillOakland, and then is reverted by 67.168.160.59. [187]
• MONGO reverts Apostle12. [188]
• Jehochman reverts Wowest who is reverted by Dscotese [189]
• Jehochman reverts Dscotese [190]

Only the first involves Thomas.

Raul based his ban on one Thomas edit which Jehochman complained about [191]

Jehochman's language shows that he is just as much a POV warrior as Thomas is:

• "Truthers"
• "tendentious group of editors"
• "horrendous POV pushing"
• "Truthers have been trying to whitewash the article for quite some time"
• "The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough."

POV warriors often:

1. label their opponents ("Truthers"),
2. use vivid adjectives ("horrendous") to describe their opponents,
3. make absolute statements ("Enough is enough").

Inclusionist (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

I can only say that the Collapse of the World Trade Center article is vastly superior since the edits of April 22. Because of the vast amount of progress in the short amount of time, I have to support the article ban. This is now a proper article without huge WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and other problems. I have tried to edit this article prior to the enforcement action and endless discussion about non-reliable, fringe theories was counterproductive. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

After comparing the differences you claim make the article "vastly superior" I notice that apart from cosmetic edits the only real changes are the deletion of a NIST reference and a reference to the engineer Cherepanov that I am disputing. This dispute is exactly what I just said in my reply to you above....Because Cherepanov supports a fringe theory you deleted a claim he made that is not fringe and tacitly supported by other reliable sources. I also notice that the current version still contains almost all of the edits Thomas Basboll made before April 22. The more I see the more I feel Thomas is being penalised for his views rather than his editing. Wayne (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Probably it's worth being underlined that Thomas' views, expressed here on Wikipedia, are strictly on wiki-editing matters, like the one that editors should look carefully into what scientific and reliable sources say and report it accordingly, without WP:OR, or locking our heads onto mainstream media ("so that Internet not suck").

Why is this case so mostly ignored by admins? Please voice your opinions. salVNaut (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Pokipsy76

Before making the edit which motivated the ban [192] Thomas discussed it and apparently had an unanimous consensus involving people having usually different views[193]. If a good faith editor can be banned without any previous warning for an edit discussed and having unanimous consensus then nobody will ever feel free to make any edit whatsoever.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Junglecat

There are certain areas I don't contribute to, or no longer contribute to on this project. The key reasons are based on several issues that I can elaborate on later if need be. To be brief, I believe I "hit the nail on the head" in regards to my response to one editor: This project was meant to be the "sum of all human knowledge." It was never meant to be a place where it becomes a soapbox for theories and ideas that someone decided use as a propaganda tool. Here's a good example that might help explain - You know, we have a Moon landing hoax article. Shall we ramrod this into the Apollo program and Moon landing articles to where we look like a website full of garbage? This is an encyclopedia. Everything has its place, and in a nutshell, that must be maintained. Anything beyond that becomes soapboxing, etc. [194] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tachyonbursts

I'll state it as broad as one can. We've been watching this evolving for years, at this point in time we have European and Japanese parliaments discussing the severity and disturbing background of the issue, yet we fail to recognize such facts? Why is that? Why do we let these outrageous conspiracy theories thrive in here, posed by Aude and Mongo and these new-old accounts we have today? Thomas and Peter and then PTR and Morton and then others are all allowed to sock puppet on the issue while literary hundreds of free minded editors are kept out of the discussion without valid reason whatsoever. Do say, what do we see here in cycle after cycle? We see one group of editors with a very strong POV imposing hegemony on the article which is located on free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I don't see how this is acceptable. Take what's going on at this moment, we have utterly phony, even ridiculous, completely one sided one minded discussion about good article there, we have POV pushers pushing their POV while the rest of community is watching with dismay, locked away as we are locked away from Universe itself. I'll ask you, is this pattern recognizable in our reality? That event abolished some very basic freedoms and we are about to recognize it as such, thus (whether you're willing to accept it or not) leaving ourselves without some very basic tools. Those folks said: We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. Well I don't like this war and terror reality they've failed to make, and I for one will never ever forgive the mass murder of American citizens which was made for self gain. That said, imo, and as far as I've seen in past time, Thomas repeatedly endured personal attacks; he stood firmly and didn't loose his temper even at times when he faced full barrages of Mongo's and Morton's incivility. I don't see how he deserved this ban, if he deserved anything it would be a star for dealing with vandals, who are, at last, recognized as such by a community much wider than Wikipedia. Finally, I'll point out something what should be clear to anyone by now. When it comes to 9/11 discussions, what recent years showed is the fact that so called mainstream account failed to enter mainstream some time ago, whether in here, or out there, we're facing with censorship of tremendous magnitude. Whether we recognize it or not, we are now living in 1984. You can take our own experience and you'll understand why there is no RS for whole plethora of undeniable and undeniably disturbing facts. In the end, and regardless of the decision on this particular issue, I'd like to ask the administrators one question, so we may know where will we go, Jimbo may chip in as well.

Whose project is this? Who owns the 9/11 Article? Is it the government or its people? Thanks. Tachyonbursts (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse per my statements in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

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

• Carcharoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [195]
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self-added)
• All of the current arbitration committee that were active and recused on this case (will notify separately) [196]

Statement by Carcharoth

Could the arbitration committee please clarify what has or has not resulted from the final principle and the associated remedy in the IRC case, namely: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Policy issues surrounding IRC and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#IRC, and what is planned for the future, if anything. The principle in full is:

"The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case. passed 7-1 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

The remedy in full is:

"Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee. passed 9-0 with 1 abstention at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Updated 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - About a week ago, when filing this request, I contacted 13 arbitrators on their talk pages regarding this request for clarification (see here). These were the current arbitrators who were listed as active on the case, or who recused themselves. So far, four have responded: FT2, Newyorkbrad, Paul August and Jdforrester (James F). Of the other nine, eight have edited Wikipedia since I contacted them (the other one has not edited in some time and has a break notice on their talk page), but have not responded here, or on their talk page. I note that FT2 has left a note here saying that he is dealing with other issues at the moment which take priority, which is fair enough. Should we take the silence of most of the other arbitrators to mean that the committee have left FT2 to deal with this? And if the arbitration committee have done this delegation (which I would in some ways prefer to long-winded committee decisions), why can't they just say so? Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No such formal delegation has been made. Paul August ☎ 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I see Flonight has since posted a response. I will wait another week before posting here again, or longer if the arbitration committee can: (a) come up with a schedule for this request; (b) clarify what is needed here and whether any all or only some arbitrators need to respond here; and (c) agree to eventually move/restart the discussion somewhere else. What I hope will come of this is that progress and consensus will be made and documented on Wikipedia (rather than in the channel and by other off-wiki means) - I presume all those participating in the #en-admins IRC channel are happy to participate in on-wiki discussion about the channel? Some moderation of the discussion might be needed, but I think such a discussion might alleviate some of the concerns. For example, one thing that could be suggested is that anyone obtaining a cloak to the channel could be required to sign (on-wiki) the channel code of conduct as part of the sign up process. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I can state that several other channel ops and I have been working hard to take the communities views in hand when we have been discussing how to handle future behavioural issues in the channel. The first thing we've done is created guidlines for the channel which all users of the channel are aware of. These can be found here. The problems highlighted in the IRC case are mainly because members of the channel didn't understand what was expected of them and the channel operators didn't really know their role in stopping behavioural problems. The operators have now decided to take a more proactive role in the enforcement of channel standards, and all users are aware that if they start discussing people behind their backs, start being offensive or anything else which could be seen from the outside as unacceptable, they'll have their access removed. Obviously sometimes a warning may suffice, but in serious incidents, we'll remove on sight.

What we've also done is made the access list public, so any IRC user can see exactly who has access to the channel. On wiki, we've created User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info) so that everyone is aware exactly who has access to the channel, and who the channel operators are. If there's a concern with someones conduct, then anyone is welcome to contact one of the ops and it will be taken extremely seriously and we'll of course keep you informed of what is happening. At present, we're currently debating the role of non administrators in the channel and whether or not they should keep their access. We've had no consensus either way up to this point, but we'll keep on going highlighting both the benefits and disadvantages.

The channel has moved on a lot since the case and although there hasn't been any direction from ArbCom, the internal running and operation has taken a lot from the case and everything is now much clearer regarding expected standards and routes for ops to take if there are problems. If people have concerns, just contact one of us. I'm sure the arbitration committee would also be willing to hear of problems if the ops haven't dealt with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Related suggestion from Wetman

If the access list has been made public, can Ryan Postlethwaite ensure that it is entered in some acceptable fashion at Wikipedia:IRC channels, so that more ordinary Wikipedians like myself could actually access it?--Wetman (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a new proposed page. Please see User:Ryan Postlethwaite/IRC. This would replace the old admins channel wikipedia space page so it has to go through DRV which can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 26#Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I linked the list at WP:IRC in the header of the WEA section, some weeks ago. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Related suggestion from Lawrence Cohen

Can we get this list of users updated to seperate out admins from non-admins, with a direct 1:1 relationship shown what IRC handle connects with what English Wikipedia username? Lawrence § t/e 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done this at User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info). I linked the ones I knew of the top of my head and non-admins are in bold. John Reaves 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Related query by Bishonen

"Just contact one of us"..? Er, how? Why are people expected to know the way to CBrowns userspace if they have been treated badly on the channel? Why isn't there a public board in Wikipedia space (linked to from WP:AN and similar) where complaints can be dealt with by senior ops? Bishonen | talk 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

It should be noted that the anchored redirect WP:WEA broke when the header it redirected to was changed with this edit on 6 March. I've just fixed it, so now people can go straight to the big red box with the link to the guidelines when they click on WP:WEA. From there, they should be able to find someone to complain to. This is a work in progress, and I'm sure suggestions you make will be discussed. Any ideas for a suitable on-wiki talk page to discuss things? Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me commenting here Bish, please feel fee to move it if you want. I agree that CBrowns userspace isn't ideal, but people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins. I personally wouldn't mind it being in a more accessible location and it would be a good idea to link it more widely so that people are clear where and who to go to and the expected conduct of the users in the channel. I'm not sure a public board is a great idea for this, if there are problems, it would most likely involve passing logs to channel operators, or the channel operators getting evidence from logs which shouldn't be posted on-wiki. I personally don't have a problem with people coming to my talk page with their concerns and I'll communicate with them on wiki regarding the steps that I'm taking to resolve them - I just don't think a dedicated noticeboard is such a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment on that - that was taken care of at the same time, earlier this month. I linked the entire channel guidelines (including where to seek help and who are the channel operators) from WP:IRC#wikipedia-en-admins specifically to ensure that question had an answer, and those needing to know how to find the guidelines and help, could know.

I also added as a second measure, also earlier this month, a section to WP:IRC covering #Problems and help, and to be sure that was visible relinked it as well from near the top of the page too. It gives full details on how to seek help if there is a problem on an IRC channel. The pages they link to contain full details of every person in any kind of channel op role, on en-admins and more generally, for much of English Wikipedia IRC. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins" - that wasn't my perception at all. People didn't seem to have a problem with it - they seemed to have a problem with the proclamation that there were "special rules" for that page, that only certain editors were allowed to touch it, it wasn't subject to consensus, and that presence there was a privilege above and beyond anything else. Achromatic (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Given that the remedy the committee passed was that the committee would address this issue, the activity Ryan discusses, while likely meritorious, does not actually fulfill the remedy. Is there a status update as to the committee's activity? GRBerry 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

First, I think this space should probably be reserved to ask the committee for an update on their views of IRC governance etc., and discussion of Bishonen's excellent question should be moved elsewhere (including my comments below, should someone be so bold as to start such a discussion).

I think a noticeboard for IRC chanops would be an excellent idea. Now, this gets a bit esoteric and lawyerish, but it seems to be the current situation that IRC is recognized as an independent creature, with different rules of conduct and methods of dispute resolution, and that Wikipedia has no authority to mandate any particular channel behavior or dispute resolution process. However, that does not mean that the chanops could not choose for their own convenience to host a noticeboard on Wikipedia. I think a noticeboard is an excellent idea because it will allow issues to be discussed by more than just the ops who happen to be online at a given moment, and it will have archives, including a record of when and why a user was added or removed from the channel that IRC itself does not provide. There already seems to be a sort of noticeboard at User talk:Cbrown1023/Guidelines.

However, hosting the noticeboard and associated policies/contact lists/dispute resolution processes in Wikipedia space presents the same problem it did before; it suggests that anyone can edit it, when in fact only the participants in IRC have a say and only the chanops (appear to) have the final say. So it may be necessary either to host the pages in project space but grant them an exemption from "everyone can edit" or to keep them in user space but raise their profile through linkage or even transclusion. Thatcher 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, IRC is not reccognised as an independent creature with separate and different rules. Jimbo, himslf, made this very clear here [197]. Giano (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Further plea and misplaced clarification by Bishonen (but if not here, then where?)

I'm replying here to FT2's response to Carcharoth's basic question why the final principle "The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case" (passed 7-1) and its associated remedy "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" (passed 9-0), have both come to naught. My post goes to clarifying the committee's final principles and remedies as they relate to en-admins IRC case—it's not about FT2's block of Giano—therefore I post it here, in preference to drowning it at the now extremely copious discussion of that block on WP:AE (most of it posted by FT2). Yes, I know I'm not supposed to post in this section, which is for arbs, but it seems my only chance of being heard. (I won't post again, whether or not you remove me from this spot, Thatcher. This has taken me much too much time as it is.)

Like probably most people, I feel at an awful disadvantage when attempting to discuss or debate with FT2, since he seems impressively able to write about 100 lines in the space of time that it takes your average wikipedian to write 20, and me to write 5. (And NYBrad to write 70 or so.) My efforts in the direction of debate with FT2 have always literally drowned. But I will try just once to do my own clarification. I made an effort to come to grips with the background to FT2's new guidelines for IRC (at this moment not available in CBrown's space, but mirrored at [198])—these guidelines being the only mouse that has so far been born from the laboring mountains of the IRC case, and it's final principles and remedies. The background to the guidelines, as offered by FT2 in channel to anybody interested, turned out to be an edited log of a discussion between FT2 and some 6 or 10 channel users (by FT2's own estimate) from February 25-26. I have it here. It's been edited by FT2 to remove irrelevancies, and consists–well, I don't have any counting tool that will work for this— but at my rough estimate, the discussion consists to at least 80% of FT2 himself talking, mainly describing how well the channel works now:

(Exact quote of log)

• <FT2> irc runs well now (here)
• <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
• <FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise"
• <FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code"
• <FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down...
• <FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise
• <FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here
• <FT2> its nice
• <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
• <FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not.

I discussed these matters with FT2 in PM on IRC several times, before he actually sent me the above log to look at, and I was rather shocked by his descriptions of that log. Here's a snippet of our discussion from March 5, posted with permission.

(Exact quote except that an e-mail address and a couple of typos have been removed.)

• <bishonen> may I have a copy of the full discussion of the channel? there was something about that in the header before.
• <FT2-away> sure :)
• its enacted now but there wasnt any controversy on it -- most folks reaction was "yeah, commonsense"
• <bishonen> thanks
• <FT2-away> I was just very careful to consult hugely to be sure that nobody could accidentally feel unasked or whatever. You know how it can go.
• <bishonen> i thought there was going to be a workgroup, or the arbcom would be involved.
• <FT2-away> I was thinking of the dispute over roillback.
• nah
• <bishonen> hugely?....
• <FT2-away> the channel basically sorted it out, about 6 or 10 people, everyone was pretty much "yeah, commonsense" by the time it was done
• <bishonen> so more people than the users of this channel were invoived?
• <FT2-away> no...
• <bishonen> i see
• <FT2-away> but there are a lot of users here... and of course those include a load of people who arent often here
• <bishonen> that's not hugely in my book, i'm afraid. but whatever.
• <FT2-away> the concern was to clean up and ensure that issues of the past were not going to be perrennial
• <bishonen> let me get this straight. only admins have been consulted? and only the minority of admins that use the admin channel?
• <FT2-away> and that's much more about people here accepting norms and considering what norms they feel apply, than about asking others... most people here or elsewhere who care about irc stuff, know what the issues are or were anyway
• <bishonen> do they?

To recapitulate: What has happened with the policy and procedures of the IRC en-admins channel since the IRC case was closed, then, is that there are now new guidelines for it in CBrown's userspace (update: no, actually at this moment in Martinp23's userspace), authored (largely) by FT2, and emphasizing how well the channel currently works.[199] The origin of the new guidelines was an IRC discussion, massively dominated by FT2 himself, on February 25-26 between FT2 and a few admins. So much for the expanded role in the governance of IRC that the ArbCom undertook in its final principle. So much for its new oversight as foreseen in the remedy it voted for. May we please have some commentary from some of the arbs besides FT2—from those that put hand to keyboard and voted for a new role of arbcom with respect to IRC—voted for changes in policy and procedure, changes to be addressed by the committee—voted 9-0 and 7-1? FloNight? Newyorkbrad? Paul August? Clarification please? Especially, clarification of that which is never clarified by anybody, but always sidestepped — the role of James Forrester as envisaged by arbcom — would be appreciated to the point of jubilation. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

What on earth does one say, reading the above - just sums up the truth of what I have been saying for weeks. Have our Arbcom anything to say to justify themselves? Or are we all to be banned for wondering, and demanding that they answer and explain themselves. Giano (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I voted oppossed to the related "principle" and abstained with regard to the related "remedy". As far as I know ArbCom has yet to take any official action with regard to either. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by White Cat

“ Users found publishing logs will be banned from all Wikimedia channels. ”

Not that I want to stir trouble but I would like to remind people the above rule. Be careful what you post here as this is a public place to publish things. I just don't want to see anyone get banned.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that these excerpts were posted by one of the participants with the explicit permission of the other; there is no issue on that front. — Coren ^(talk) 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not accusing anyone of wrong doing. In the heat of the dispute people sometimes forget such things. This was intended as a good faith reminder. Nothing more or less. -- Cat ^chi? 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

I'd make the point, speaking to the notes and log above, that the current en-admins channel does have a wide membership in terms of its views, and I think despite the thinking of some that the diversity of the community's views are actually well represented there. A recent incident (well documented elsewhere so no need to do so here) resulted in strident criticism of the channel's operations, and as a critic myself of the initial handling of the matter, I was happy with how it was ultimately resolved. Orderinchaos 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad by Bishonen

in reply to NYB's opinion (moved from below)

"Succinctly"? LOL, come on, don't be so quick to dudgeon just because it's me. You're Patient Guy with everybody else, remember? Thank you for your answer. Will you clarify it a little bit more? I guess there may not indeed be community consensus that the ArbCom should exercise control over the channel, but it's my impression that there is/was ArbCom consensus for it[200] (with the single exception of Paul August). Your own support for the principle "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" is admittedly very hedged, being predicated on it being "unfair to the parties" to keep the IRC case open any longer (not that I quite see what one thing has to do with the other — did Paul's abstention keep the case open any extra time?) As a short version, would you agree with this description of the current state of affairs: the ArbCom is, with the exception of FT2, individually and collectively in flight from taking responsibilty for the principle+remedy in question? Are you all waiting for somebody else to fulfill the passive "input should be sought"? Bishonen | talk 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

"Succinctly" was a bit of self-criticism; I'm trying to cut back on the excessive length of some of my project-space posts (although I will note with a smile that I share your assessment that I will never be the longest-winded arbitrator so long as FT2 is serving on the committee alongside me).

The relationship between my vote and closing the case is that traditionally a case is not closed until all the pending substantive proposals have been voted on. The alternative to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later" would have been keeping the case open to address them now, and that would have prolonged the case, including the pendency of remedy proposals against several editors (including yourself) that you and I were both strongly opposed to.

I fear that "in flight" could be considered an NPOV term. I have acknowledged that we have not, or have not yet, collectively followed up on the agenda item of exerting control over the #admins channel. But I am not sure that we should be criticized for not implementing ArbCom governance of the channel without some evidence that either the denizens of the channel or the community at large (the views of both are entitled to strong consideration) wants us to do such a thing. In fact, putting aside the solicitation of the views of the whole community, I am not sure what you personally believe the committee should do at this time to implement the remedy cited and exercise responsibility over the channel, if we were to approach the matter collectively rather than individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Diverging from the committee as collective for a moment, I certainly honor you individually for supporting Paul August's motion to dismiss the case.[201]) I'm aware of that tradition, but I thought voting against, or explicitly abstaining on, a substantive proposal counted as "voting on" it, too. No? Keeping the case open can't very well have been the only alternative to voting support to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later". There was always the possibility of an (at the time) obviously impopular but franker and less foot-shuffling counterproposal that "issues relating to the channel will not be addressed by this committee, and as for James Forrester, forgeddabaddit. " Kicking the ball discreetly into my court ("what you personally believe the committee should do at this time") won't help either, I'm afraid. I have no straw for your collective bricks. If I had, I'd gladly offer it. But, to reverse a classic wiki-saying, [202] I'm not ArbCom's mother. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

The arbcom voted to address the issues, Jimbo told you that you have the "Jimbo given" authority, now cut the crap all of you get in there and do as you told us you were going to do. 9 Arbs voted to address the issues. So far we have seen FT2 and someone called Ryan Postlethwaite talk about how there is no problem. We all know too many bad blocks have been orchestrated there, and too much discussed with non-admins and toadies, so time to clean it up. If you are too frightened to solve the problems, then dissolve the channel. Incidentally where are these 9 brave Arbs who voted to address the problem in return for placing me on civility patrol? Has there been some form of unreported massacre? I don't believe I have read any reports of it? Now come on, cut the crap and address the problem. You Arbs enjoy banning me, now you keep to your side of the bargain - or does James Forrester rule you? Giano (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Irpen

The saga over IRC is not new and the abuse grew since its inception. It first came to public light in the Fall 2006. The IRC got so frightened by the public reaction and by the evidence seeing the light that it called it a "coup d'etat attempt" (this post made my day). Shortly the mess called Giano-I ArbCom was dubbed (aptly but imprecisely) an uprising of writing admins while in fact it was an uprising of Wikipedia writing community against the Wikipedia being "run" by its self-appointed ever-chatting in secret "elite" that dubbed that very community as "fickle and ill-informed populace".

Once some facts came out in the open, the 2007 passed with IRC resisting to give ground and claiming that everything is good to much of the community disgust. However, what was originally seen as "IRC" got developed into a new mentality. This culminated in Durova case and another messy discovery of the existence of the secret "lists" run on Wikia servers where good editors were investigated the Wikipedia Review style by a newly arrived layer of self-appointed "leaders and protectors of Wikipedia". Each of these messes brought some good revelations (and good desysoppings) but their usefulness by far exceeded that.

They where eye openers. Giano-I case revealed the phenomenon, the Durova case showed the extent to which the malfeasance penetrated. It was in this context that a mysterious and never heard of user (just like the author of Giano-I case) submitted a new case (originally also dubbed Giano) which was renamed "IRC" and portrayed as the case about "warring over WP:WEA" when editors of the "fickle and ill-informed" side tried to make the page reflecting the reality while David Gerard and his friends insisted on explicit rights over the Wikipedia page and on the the hypocritically convenient and deliberate lack of clarity over the connection between #admins and the Wikipedia

The ArbCom for whatever reason accepted a case over David Gerard's WP:WEA page just as quickly as it accepted the original (Giano-I) case. ArbCom then produced a decision with a bunch of findings and remedies totally disconnected from each other. Nevertheless, the committee took it upon itself to address the IRC problems at a later time leaving the community under an impression that " Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee". Community hoped to see something meaningful, like a workgroup proposed by Flo. Later, "no consensus from ArbCom was found for this proposal" (note passive voice).

Soon the community "was told" that the adequate measures "were taken" through the channel's "self-policing" decided through "discussion" that occurred... nowhere else but at #admins itself. A paradox? I happened to have seen this "discussion". It was basically one arb/chanellop saying things and others nodding. This is a strange kind of "discussion" where an input from those "allegedly" abused by #admins is glaringly lacking. But let's see whether the channel improved and the problems are now "addressed" like we've heard time and again. Here is a random (not exclusive by any means) list of events (note recent dates) that took place at #admins and how they were "addressed".

1. Feb. 7, 2008: Admin Moreschi roamed into a channel out of the blue exclusively to whine about Irpen. I think it is worse that he spoke about me behind my back having no courage to say things in my face than the particular word "a bastard" he chose, but that aside, he was met at the channel by a level-30 chanellop. That chanellop told Moreschi that he "probably shouldn't do it somewhere so leaky" and tried to alleviate Moreschi's worries by reminding Moreschi "Well, you've still got a block button" "*chanellop hints". This pleasant conversation had several consequences:
   1. When I confronted Moreschi about his conduct this person had no courage to respond at all
   2. However, my request for explanation did prompt a discussion at... (sigh) #admins. The discussion was not about the Moreschi's conduct though. Instead it was about "leaks" and it was initiated by another channelop
   3. Yet another level-30 channelop was present at the channel, took part in discussion and did nothing of consequence
   4. The case was finally analyzed by yet another level-30 channelop and a sitting arbitrator, (see here). The analysis called this blockshopping and a request to take it somewhere "less leaky" as an attempt to restrain Moreschi. Case thus considered "handled".
2. March 13, 2008 an admin blocked for a clear case of 3RR came to the channel to shop for an unblock. He called his content opponents, long time contributors with a long history of content writing, "two POV-trolls". Again, the user, a long time champion of citing WP:CIV, had no courage to say things of that sort to their face, but at #admins it was considered "OK": not only wasn't he called to order, but he talked himself out of the block. Details available here and here
3. March 14, 2008, an admin who is widely active in wikipolitics (an arbcom clerk, no less, among other things) called a female user "a bitch" (in her absense) over her attempt to draw attention to her pet project through posting a call for participation at another user's talk (she later reverted that). At this time, the admin was politely asked to cut it by an arbitrator who was at the channel. The admin's response to the call to order was defiant, he claimed that he would have said the same in her face. There is no evidence that the said admin went ahead and said this to her face, which I think, although revolting, would be less objectionable than doing so behind the woman's back, but that maybe just me. The admin was not sanctioned in any way although it would have likely prevented an incident below that took place just hours later.
4. On the same date, an IRC admin who happens to be a [former?] "volunteer Communications Coordinator at the WMF" called an absent non-admin user "an idiot and a moron" over this, perhaps a gullible but honest mistake without a doubt. There was no action at the channel
5. Mar 25, 2008: A different but a very IRC active admin who tried to bait Giano with "civility policing" warnings and questions had his comments removed. He ran to the channel asking "someone else" to help "to stop fucking with my questions to Giano so I dfon't have to edit war?" [sic] Is it just me or others see a double paradox in this all being over the civility policing itself (1) and the help being asked so that "[he does]n't have to edit war" (2) ?

(To avoid more red faces, I did not name some of the users and only provided the names in the cases that have been already discussed onwiki).

Now, we clearly see that the channel remains abusive. We also see that the despite some claims to the contrary, the current system of "good ombudsmanship" does not work. One does not need to be exceptionally smart to explain why:

1. This whole idea of ombundsmanship by "good" ops of such closed media as checkuser log and #admins can only work with proactive ombudsmans since affected users usually don't know about being abused. So, channelops have to act vigilantly upon each case of abuse even if they found out purely by accident. Otherwise, it is all meaningless.
2. The corrupted medium cannot be fixed from within by definition. Attempts of outside reform are vigorously thwarted but not by the "community", as some suggest, but by no one other than the channel's regulars
3. This all continues for so long due to a deliberately maintained ambiguity of the channel's status that allows those who shared David Gerard's views and preferences to both claim the cake and eat it too. Not only attempts to improve the channel meaningfully are thwarted, the attempts to disconnect the channel from the Wikipedia are thwarted too. In a bizarre twist, the attempts to subject the channel to a meaningful WP oversight are also thwarted (and again only by the channel enthusiasts.)

I am sure that immediately upon my posting this will be discussed at the channel whose name you guessed right or even at one of the other "less leaky" channels. Surprisingly, I predict that the discussion will be again not on the substance but on the leaks themselves, just like in the Moreschi's incident.

We walked a long way since the Fall of 2006. On one hand we are by far better aware that backroom activity is thriving. OTOH, more people are now involved. A whole bunch now are on some channel: the #admins, "that other less leaky one" or one of its twins. Among those who are not (as well as who are) a whole bunch are on some "lists", yet unpurged Arbcom-L, a second (or third or more) Arbcom-L, the WR-style "investigations" list, etc (note: I do not have anything against the anti-harassment list particularly if it is held on topic). This list/channel tradition in addition to a direct devastating effect on the project, created a secondary effect. There are now POV-pushing and nationalist e-lists and IM networks. Instead of wikiprojects (many of which are dying), we have IRC-projects that are not transparent (e.g., the USRoads IRC related to another recent Arbcom case.) This atmosphere procreated by #admins is now corroding the good of Wikipedia.

Yes, people can (and will) talk privately. But we should not encourage it directly and, most importantly, should not sanction abuse at the officially affiliated IRC channels (by refusing to act or pretend that all is well), or disclaim the affiliation but refuse to dissociate either (cake have/eat) procreating this deliberate, hypocritical and morally indefensible limbo.

Clean up the #admins in a meaningful way or remove all links to it and let the folks have their chat, just like the team tags do! This all are not new ideas and have been stated in some form multiple times. However, please don't talk the "channel is now good and reformed". It just does not cut it and the editors would not believe such claims anymore anyway.

Volunteering by Stifle

I rarely use IRC (I've been on four times this year) but spend quite an amount of time on wiki, and am somewhat removed from the issues complained of. I'd like to volunteer to be one of the five named admins if the proposal below is passed. Of course I will not take offense if not chosen. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Good questions by all, and I'll have a go at an answer, but it probably won't be brief. Others will obviously have their view too. Firstly, some background reading for anyone unfamiliar with matters - and that includes a number of people who might feel they are familiar. I tried to describe the main points of the background on IRC as I see it (both sides) at: WP:RFC/IRC channels#Comment by FT2. It's "essential background" on the issue and dynamics, and forms the context of the decisions and any reply.

In the meantime I'm fitting drafting a fuller reply in between working stuff in my wiki-in-tray, as well as ever-present real world matters. I'll try to get it posted later today but it could be tomorrow or even a day beyond. That's unavoidable in a way -- the question actually asks for a short report in a way, rather than the usual simple opinion, since "measures taken" are meaningless without an understanding of the context, the disputes, and the various perspectives involved. And of course, a few have very strong views which in fact don't competely match reality, and that will be tricky to explain to them (as can happen in any dispute). So given the subject, it needs to be a bit more thorough. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - events were rather busy here last week, as noted (and here too). This last few days I've been more involved in pushing to 'go live' on BLP-related matters that will help BLP subjects (members of the public). Prioritization. Hence a delay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Newyorkbrad:

I will respond as Bishonen requests, while trying my best to heed her implied request that I do so succinctly.

Personally, I have not played a role in the governance of #admins or any other IRC channel, although I log into the channel from time to time (less often now than I did a few months ago, as it happens). Frankly, I think I am not alone among the arbitrators in not yet figured out quite how best to implement Jimbo Wales' request that the Arbitration Committee play a new role in overseeing channel governance. Nor is it clear to me that there is community consensus that the ArbCom, as such, should exercise control over the channel. Not only does there remain a lack of clarity as to the relationship, if any, between Wikipedia and the "Wikipedia" named IRC channels, but there remain very mixed views as to whether that lack of clarity is unacceptable, tolerable, or affirmatively desirable. Nor has there been further discussion so far as I am aware concerning the role of Jdforrester in this regard. As reflected in his contribution history, James has had to take some extended wikibreaks this year for real-world reasons and to the best of my knowledge has not been a participant in any matters related to the channel(s) for at least several weeks.

In the absence of a committee decision or consensus on how to proceed, individual arbitrators have tried to take the lead: first FloNight, by proposing the creation of a work group (a proposal that did not attain critical mass to go forward), and then FT2 with his proposal and adopting of channel guidelines. Other proposed initiatives to address concerns about the #admins channel, such as the suggestion that the access of everyone who is not an English Wikipedia admininstrator be revoked, have not attained consensus among users of the channel, and the new chan-ops have apparently decided not to implement them over widespread objections. The Arbitration Committee as a whole was not the decision-maker on this or any related issues. It bears note, however, that at least one controversial former participant in #admins, Tony Sidaway, has permanently relinquished his access to the channel and my sense is that there is no prospect of such access being restored save in the unlikely event he were to have a new and successful RfA.

If there is a perception that the committee needs to act on its adopted remedy to address issues relating to the administrators' IRC channel, then community input should be sought regarding what changes, if any, should be made. On whether this should be done now, or whether some time should be allowed to pass so we can judge whether the new guidelines have a salutary effect as sought by FT2 and others, I have no strong view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I recused from the Arbitration case for obvious reasons; since the case closed, I have been asked by a group of people who I judged (in my rôle as IRC Group Contact) to be representatives of the #wikipedia-en-admins community to carry out a few actions. However, I am (as intended) hands-off and, as Brad mentions, I have not particularly participated in any discussions regarding the channel's organisational aspects. James F. (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by FloNight.

By custom, and widely supported by the Community and the Arbitration Committee, the Arbitration Committee is not a legislative body. We do not write policy for the Community except as it directly relates to the Committee's procedures and practices. The Arbitration Committee's role is to assist the Community in settling disputes where user conduct issues are stopping the Community from making thoughtful consensus decisions about content or policy, or when user conduct issues are seriously disrupting the Community in other ways. Traditionally, the Arbitration Committee is the source all involuntary removal of administrative tools for misuse of the tools.

My interpretation of Jimbo's comment is that he is stating his view that the Arbitration Committee has the authority to settle user conduct problems that occur in #wikipedi-en-admins, if the the usual dispute resolution processes in this channel does not work. I do not think that he is suggesting that the Arbitration Committee is charged with writing the policy for the channel or to be involved in the daily administration of the channel. His request that arbitrators have an influence over the daily administration of the channel is also noted. (This is my interpretations of Jimbo's comments, I realize that other interpretations are possible.)

Since misconduct in the #admins channel might be related to the use of administrative tools or possibly involve a lack of decorum that is expected of Wikipedia administrators, it is reasonable to think that an arbitration case might be warranted if a serious type of administrative misconduct occurs.

At a minimum, in order for the Arbitration Committee actions related to the channel to be reliable and effective, the Committee needs an accurate record of the alleged dispute to compare with established channel guidelines. Prior to the start of the IRC case neither accurate logs or channel guidelines were available for our review. Establishing these were a priority and the first action taken.

I would like to note that other methods for establishing Community consensus regarding #admins have been suggested but none have received the level of support for Community to take action on them at this time. Other suggestions related to other issues related to Wikipedia IRC are also noted. I want to make special note that the Committee received comments on site and by email from editors who primarily edit other Foundation projects that expressed opinions about the Committee's relationship to all Wikimedia Freenode IRC channels. (My comment follows.)

1. A Working group focused on establishing policies that adhere to joint Wikipedia English and IRC standards of conduct. (Not enough support for a separate body to write new policies. I'm uncertain that this is needed.)
2. Establish/review user conduct guideline for all Wikipedia English related IRC channels. (Not enough support at this time. I support a discussion about the merits of this type of a review.)
3. Chan op elections on Wikipedia English for #admin channel. (Not enough support and uncertain that this is needed.)
4. Requiring that the current chan ops read and agree to enforce #admin channel guidelines. (Suggestion has not been widely discussed as far as I know so I'm unclear it has been rejected. I support this idea.)
5. Monitor all Wikipedia English related IRC channels for user conduct issues with logs and other means of observation of conduct. (Not received adequate discussion since Jimbo's comments regarding ArbCom's relationship to IRC.)
6. A notice board for concerns about IRC channels to be discussed. (Not enough support at this time for consensus to establish it and have chan ops available on the notice board.)
7. Monthly meeting on site to address IRC related concerns. Possible in connection with a noticeboard. (Not consensus for the need.)
8. Close #admin. (No consensus.)

Future Committee action for consideration:

1. Update Arbitration Committee policy to reflect a consensus agreement of Jimbo's statements about IRC.
2. Continue to in listen to the Community for suggestions about the best ways that the Arbitration Committee assist with IRC related issues. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Special enforcement

The editing restriction imposed on Giano II (talk · contribs) in this case shall be subject to special enforcement. The Committee shall name up to five administrators who, together with the sitting members of the Committee, shall act as special enforcers for this restriction. Only these special enforcers shall be authorized to determine whether a violation of the restriction has occurred, and to issue blocks if one has.

Any administrator that reverses, modifies, or otherwise interferes with a block imposed by one of the special enforcers under this provision shall be summarily desysopped.

This provision shall supersede the existing enforcement provisions in the case.

Support:

1. Some moderation would be good here. Kirill 02:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I think this would be fairer all round in the exceptional circumstances. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Might work; certainly nothing else has. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

it makes no difference I will not be acknowldging this illicit sanction. Giano (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comment:

Kirill, thank you for listening to my concerns about the Committee's existing editing restrictions on Giano, the way that his editing is being evaluated, and the manner that the Committee's sanctions are being enforced. We need to make it clear that administrators that block Giano would be subject to summarily desysopping, as well as those that unblock him. (More later). FloNight♥♥♥ 11:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of desysopping blocking admins, do you mean those who block specifically under the civility parole, or in general? I have no problems with the former; and my only concern with the latter would be the question of how to effectively inform the admin community of the matter. Kirill 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Both. I want to make it clear that a limited sanction by the Committee should not interpreted in a manner that lowers the threshold for blocking an user with many good contributions EXPECT for the specific problem that the Committee is addressing with our remedy. I do not think that a single administrator should take it upon themselves to block an user for conduct that the Committee can not agree to address through ArbCom sanctions. In the case of a high profile user, I think that this is an important issue because many administrators are marginally familiar with the user and the situation around them. As a general rule, I think that administrators should be extremely slow to block any user with many, many good contributions because it has an adverse effect well beyond the length of the block. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Although my sole involvement has been in an administrative manner, I feel in view of the intense nature of the last week's discussion, and that it's not needed for me to express a view here (enough others can or will), and prefer to abstain this time around, without prejudice to future case decisions. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

---