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.

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

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.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

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

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

Statement by Conti

The article about Encyclopedia Dramatica was recently recreated after this DRV. My question is simple: Are we allowed to link to that wiki (in whatever form) at Encyclopedia Dramatica? It's a content decision, yes, but since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO states quite clearly that "Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia"[1], it would be best if the Arbitration Committee would clarify whether that ruling is true for the article about ED, too. Can we link to that site, or aren't we even allowed to mention its URL? Or is it up to the community to decide whether we want a link or not? --Conti|✉ 14:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WAS 4.250

Please comment on this. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Wikidemo

As someone who just stumbled into this, the dispute is very odd. Lately some have objected to the placing of a live link, and even a dead or commented-out link, from the article about this content site to the site's main page. Nearly every other notable website / service or company has a routine link to the main site, either in its infobox or in the external links section. In this case, the company in question is blacklisted by arbitration ruling because a determined group of people were using links to derogatory material there as a way of harassing a prominent Wikipedia editor. The purpose of the earlier ruling did not seem to be to deny the the existence of the site, or to censor encyclopedic coverage of notable things in the world that happened to reflect negatively on Wikipedia - more specifically, the earlier ruling was not an attempt to make the content decision on whether such things should be covered. Rather, it was merely to stop the harassment and use of Encyclopedia Dramatica as an attack site. To prohibit a routine WP:EL in this case, would seem to be an unintended and inadvertent consequence of the ruling. There are a lot of websites in the world, some that are vulgar, frivolous, and offensive (some cases in point: Fucked Company, Max Hardcore, Aryan Nations). If we cover them we link to their home page. To turn up our nose in this one case because the site is a parody of Wikipedia, would seem petty and censorious. Certainly, anyone can type these words into google and find the link, so we are not hiding their existence - just making a statement that we don't like them so we won't link to them. Wikidemo (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't see any contributory infringement issue. We can link to home pages of sites when there is known infringement somewhere on the site. If we avoided a main page link every time we knew there was likely infringement somewhere on the site we couldn't link to youtube, google, Facebook, Myspace, etc. Probably couldn't link to Wikipedia either. Wikidemo (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FT2's analysis below is eloquent and persuasive. Regarding the concerns that an external link may be gamed, how about simply providing that we may link to the main page of their site, but that the link may be removed summarily (and possibly temporarily) any time ED posts blatant copyright infringement or an attack on Wikipedians on that page? If this becomes burdensome or a cat-and-mouse game the community will grow tired of it and remove the link for good; if things settle down and ED goes about its many other pursuits on its main page we will link to them as we would to any other controversial site. Establishing a firm rule that one particular site is forbidden to wikipedians is akin to prior restraint in the wider world. Wikidemo (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

ArbCom, by its own admission, does not make policy or intervene in content disputes. This ill-conceived decision of theirs has been responsible for much mischief and drama ever since it was issued, including being the genesis of the BADSITES non-policy. Now that the original context of the decision -- the state of affairs after the ED article was deleted and wasn't expected to be recreated any time soon -- is no longer in effect, neither does it make any sense to enforce the decision on links specifically in the article itself, where making any variance from the normal policy of linking to websites about which articles are concerned (a policy that is followed even with "hate sites" like Stormfront (website)) is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Sceptre: Yuck, what a mess... that previous "ArbCom clarification" is as clear as mud, with arbitrators opposing for a variety of contradictory reasons, ranging from wanting to maintain a flat ban on links to the site, to wanting to have links dealt with by editors under normal policy without any special exceptions, to regarding any decision on the issue to be premature before an ED article actually exists. Well, the article exists now, so they can't dodge the responsibility of coming to a coherent position, even if that position is to bounce the whole issue back to the community to be decided as a content issue as normal. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Durova: Your theory that it's invalid to link to anything in ED, including to its home page from the article on the site, because the site allegedly contains copyright violations, is a novel one with little support in either prior Wikipedia policy actions or case law; all prior cites that I know of concerned linking directly to infringing material for the specific purpose of making the specific material accessible, not to a generic site link that might happen to let a user eventually find some unknown infringement. I think you're just fishing for alternative justifications to prevent links to that site after earlier justifications have been discredited. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Hu12: I'm going to call "bullshit" on your assertion that ED exists for the "sole and primary purpose of promoting co-ordinated vandalism and personal attacks on Wikipedians". That actually seems to be a fairly minor purpose of theirs, subsidiary to their main goals of producing a (tasteless and vulgar) parody encyclopedia, as well as documenting Internet memes and drama in a semi-serious way. *Dan T.* (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence

This is an excellent opportunity for the community to review and decide upon whether any content/editorial decisions are within the authority of the Arbitration Committee. The AC's response in regards to such a test case could go significantly towards any community-mandated or enforced Arbitration reform, and the authority the community (as the body that empowers the AC) has over the Committee. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. The Arbitration Committee can say only they can change their policy page, but they still can't do anything the community does not support. It's really that simple. As Jimmy Wales (who himself only has "power" because we allow it as he is neither the owner of Wikipedia and just one more board member) turned over control of the AC to itself (evidenced by their ability to overrule him) and the fact that an AC without the community willing to enforce it is toothless and irrelevant, yes. My simple point is that anything they do, which is normally spot-on, has to be accepted by the community to have authority. The AC members themselves in the IRC case talk page/proposed decision confirmed this to me, including Brad and Jpgordon. They have significant power, but it is finite and tightly defined power. As the question of the AC making policy or content/editorial decisions comes up regularly, this is a perfect time to see what they think of that. If the community signs off on them having editorial/content control, swell. If they don't sign off... well, then the AC can't do that. They answer to the community, not the other way around. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by NVS

Lawerence, are you sure? NonvocalScream (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

To the committee; I encourage the committee to permit this article to have a live link. To deny a link, may contravene our Neutral point of view policy indirectly, something we hold dearly. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The comment that Durova made regarding copyright gives me pause. I'd like to abstain from comment here until I can research her claim myself. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Researched it. I think the community should decide on this. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Kirill, please clarify your answer. It is ok if the community wants to link ED to the ED article? NonvocalScream (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre

The AC voted 1/7/1 to support an exception for a link in the ED article only two months ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Martinp23

It is manifestly outside the remit of the ArbCom to make a decision on policy or on content. I would urge the committee to withdraw their previous statement (as posted by Sceptre above) and leave the matter up to a normal interpretation of the rules. By being involved in this question at all, ArbCom is exerting an influence over and above that which a dispute resolution body should have. Martinp23 19:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps FT2's comments would be better placed on the talk page of the article in question as part of a community discussion into whether the link should be included. Not in what is evolving into an "ArbCom statement of policy". Martinp23 17:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Z00r

This request for clarification is largely irrelevant. The previous ruling, as applied to this article, is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. ArbCom is a dispute resolution body that answers to the community, and NPOV and NOTCENSORED are an expression of community concensus embodied in official policy. Should ArbCom continue to deny the use of such links in this situation, they would be overstepping their authority and should be ignored. Z00r (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Durova

Per WP:COPYRIGHT#Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [2]). This isn't mere theory: see "Wikimedia Foundation receives copyright infringement claim from Mormon Church", which hinges on a contributory copyright infringement link. Currently this Wikinews story is on the front page of Slashdot.

It would exceed the Committee's mandate to authorize an outgoing link to ED, which practices extensive copyright infringement. This is a matter for the law and for Foundation counsel, if such a proposal is to be entertained at all. Given the current ongoing news it is highly unlikely that it would get anywhere. Durova^Charge! 20:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

We have to delink all outbound links to Youtube, Geocities, Wikileaks, and any other user-edited site then (including slashdot, which has linked in the story and comments you linked to the Mormon material. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, threaded discussion is inappropriate here. And I do take out large numbers of contributory copyvio links (check my contribution history). This is a matter for Mike Godwin, not for ArbCom and certainly not for random volunteers. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Kendrick7^talk

Just a reminder that the involved editors should simply apply the WP:BADLINKS guideline here, which represents the end point of community consensus regarding that old ArbCom suggestion on links in the MONGO case. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Exxolon (talk)

This is beyond the ArbCom's remit. The ArbCom is here to deal with serious violations of policy by users, not to formulate policy itself. The community is sovereign in this decision, not the judiciary. Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Hu12

Currently some external links are permitted by various guidelines, however they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any specific Wikipedia policy to be included. Overturning or ruling in this matter may create a dangerous precedent which could encourage linking to sites that;

1. Put people in danger
2. Compile and sponsors efforts to obtain real world identities of Wikipedia contributors;
3. Publish or make public private Wikipedian information;
4. Harasses or sponsors harassment of Wikipedians;
5. Makes or sponsors legal threats toward Wikipedians;

encyclopediadramatica.com exists for the sole and primary purpose of promoting co-ordinated vandalism and personal attacks on Wikipedians. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here, and should be excluded. Arguments for inclusion goes against common sense, obvious community disapproval and human decency. Rationale for allowing links from ED becomes quite secondary to the potential harm the site has previously done and continues to demonstrates it intends to do. Wikipedia should not advocate recruitment via external linking of this site.--Hu12 (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition;

• encyclopediadramatica.com fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

• ”Verifiability”
  • ” Questionable_sources”
  • "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
  • ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
• ”Reliable sources”
  • ”Self-published sources”
• Copyright
  • Linking to copyrighted works

--Hu12 (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Lid

It seems odd to me that ED continues to be the exception based off such bizarre rulings as it contains copyright material (most websites linked to on wikipedia too) or it insults people on the internet (which hasn't prevented linking to, for example, Something Awful) or at the extreme that its a wikipedia terrorist website (seriously, trying to sweep it under the rug and demonise it just lowers your position, not to mention the claims are spurious and incorrect). In addition to all of this is that by its own description ArbCom does not make decisions of content, and this clearly is a decision about article content making it a violation of ArbCom's own practice.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that WP:NPOV is being thrown out the window because people can't keep their emotions in check in this specific case alone because it affects wikipedia editors. Wikipedia in the past has offended many religions, races, countries and politically inclined people through its content that we have stood behind because of NPOV and resistance to censorship. To become the angry mob that we resist in every other debate over content because it relates to wikipedia is hypocritical and largely indefensible. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Pornography is the most recent example of wikipedia offending others but standing up against them. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Chunky Rice

I'm somewhat confused by the clarification as it now stands. Kirill indicates that this is a matter for the community to decide. FT2 starts out saying that it should be a community matter, but then indicates that he thinks that the prohibition on links to ED should stand as is. Then James F. says he agrees with both of them and, given their apparent disagreement, I don't know what that means. Because of the highly contentious nature of this decision, I think that an unambiguous statement is needed here as to whether there is an Arbcom prohibition on linking to this website in the article about that website, or if this is to be considered a standard content decision to be determined by community consensus. Thank you. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We ourselves, as a committee, often have divergent views and need to consider how our own consensus goes as well. As time's passed and the community handles more cases, we get far more difficult and contentious ones, so you'll regularly find Arbitration cases that go into novel territory. In time something unambiguous will develop from it, so to speak, if it remains an issue. (If it isn't an issue, then that's an answer too.) Cases like this often have a period where you have to see what happens. Hope that helps somewhat. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Thanks for the response. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

The article was ultimately deleted after a long battle I had regarding linking to it. I imagine that others, maybe even myself again will have to endure the same nonsense if we allow links ot that website...namely, I was trolled via email and my usertalk that an article about MONGO had been created there...later, when they made the MONGO article their "featured article" of the day...I was further harassed by anons and others. I removed links to that article to protect myself from offsite harassment...I guess I don't like being called a pedophile.--MONGO 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm fairly certain that this matter has already come up for clarification (albeit in a more hypothetical manner), and that we stated fairly clearly at the time that our prohibition on linking to ED was contingent on there not being a legitimate article on the site, and that the existence of such an article was a matter for the community to decide. Kirill ^(prof) 01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To clarify: as far as I'm concerned, at this point, the community can do whatever it wishes regarding the existence of an ED article and the presence of links to ED, whether within that article or elsewhere. Kirill ^(prof) 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I initially have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand wherever possible, we aim to be dispassionate and neutral. Unfortunately this is a site that as a sideline specializes (amongst other things) in hurtful, disparaging, defamatory, malicious personal attacks on a wide range of internet users, which inevitably includes a number of Wikipedians. Whatever page is linked to, is likely to be considered fair game for such an attack to be posted, exactly because it can be gamed.

The decision whether ED is notable or not, is a communal one. To a great extent the decision whether ED should have an article or be linked, is also a communal decision. The only reason the Arbitration Committee is involved in it, is because when the wider community cannot reach decisions in some kinds of matters, we get asked to form a view and a ruling, binding on all. ED's article and the repeated deletion and linking disputes (in the context of attack sites, the MONGO case, admin disputes, and communal divisions generally) was that kind of issue. It was for that reason only, this committee in previous years was asked to consider it by the community, and gave a decision on ED and links to that site.

My personal feeling is that this decision, sadly, should stand. After thinking, I'm inclined to feel that at least for the time being, no links should be allowed.

To recap the main arguments, there are enough users who strongly feel ED has done harm (and perhaps continues to do it), and that even allowing an article to exist is too much, too even-handed, or doubtful given sources. There are also many users who strongly feel we should be neutral, and treat it in principle the same as any other topic, as we would Stormfront or any other site with hostile views to some people, even if it has targetted some of our users. The main divisions and dynamics underlying the previous decision have not gone away.

What has changed is that there has been a DRV in which it was decided the site passed (possibly barely and subject to AFD) our notability criteria. The article has been recreated. We can regulate the quality of our own article - if necessary via page protection. But the moment we link to ED, the link used may be gamed, no matter what page it is to. The difference between an ED article and a Stormfront article is, a link to the latter is less likely to be gamed arbitrarily. A link to ED is unusually likely to be. Attacks posted on this site may not be restrained - indeed, activities by others "seeking the lulz" have sometimes lacked even slight restraint.

Wikipedia is in the real world - we may not always have a viable ideal solution that all can agree upon. Stepping back a bit, links to a site are less crucial than links to reliable independent sources about the site. We cannot prevent other web sites acting as they will; we are not under any obligation to assist in giving them any pages that will receive higher traffic from us, to help them do so, if their track record is sufficiently hostile to the mere existence of the editorial community here. ED is one of a small number of sites that overall would be likely to get rated that way. Even though it would be unusual, we can host a neutral article about it, without any informational links to it. For the time being, that is probably the best solution. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just in case there was doubt, I echo FT2's thoughts in general, and Kirill's comment (re. our previous clarification) in particular. James F. (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Commodore Sloat-Biophys

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

• Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by csloat

This arbcomm decision was decided a while ago; it was determined that there was no substantive evidence of wrongdoing but both myself and Biophys were advised to "refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way." It was my assumption that this advisory included following one another and reverting the other's edits on principle and without comment (such as this edit, followed by this one). In both examples, Biophys reverted my edits (which I had explained clearly in the edit summaries along with a note in talk); his only comment in talk was that he was not allowed to explain his reasons because of the arbcomm ruling. My assumption was that the arbcomm ruling would advise us against edit warring against each other, but Biophys seems to believe that it only prohibits us from explaining why we reverse one another's edits if we choose to do so. Personally I don't particularly want to have interactions with Biophys, but I do think that if he is going to revert my edits he should at least be encouraged to explain why. Can you clarify? Thanks. csloat (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to respond to Biophys' comments below, the instruction from arbcom was to "refrain from interacting or commenting" with/about each other -- not to avoid content editing of articles. I would assume that reverting one's edits without comment is still a way of "interacting with" each other. For him to use arbcom as a way to revert my edits without responding to the issues involved seems disruptive. Also, the article "Nuclear terrorism" was, I believe, on my watchlist since 2006. The article on "Terrorism" was on my watchlist even longer (2004 maybe?) I did not appear "all of a sudden" as he states. I did not "ask him to debate my deletions" -- I explained my deletions and he reverted without explanation in an extremely disruptive manner. I find this behavior unproductive. csloat (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was on my watchlist long before that. And you are not consistent on this claim; for example, I edited Terrorism at least as long ago as July 2005, yet here you are in 2008 and 2007 editing it. My point remains that arbitrarily deciding that you own articles you edited first and I own articles that I edited first smacks of WP:OWN, and is an inappropriate interpretation of the arbcomm recommendation. It is especially inappropriate, IMHO, for you to interpret that recommendation as meaning you can revert my edits whenever you please but have an excuse not to defend your actions in talk. Things would actually be much better if you and I both focused on editing the content of articles rather than trying to dredge up old (and, it turns out, ill-advised) disputes. csloat (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Biophys keeps changing his story so I'm going to add one more comment to this. I think it is silly to get involved in the question of who had which article on their watchlist first -- not just silly, but blatantly inconsistent with WP:OWN. His idea that whichever one of us edited an article first gets to stay there was not part of the Arbcom decision. That is his own imposition (unilaterally) of a disciplinary action that he made up, apparently because it benefited his own plan (which was to keep adding original research and irrelevant material to certain articles). I think it is disruptive and abusive for him to use the arbcomm decision as an excuse to edit war without even explaining why he is reverting, as he did at Nuclear terrorism. It would be great if someone besides me could ask him to stop. Thanks. csloat (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, Biophys. I never said I was unhappy with the arbcomm ruling; in fact, I thought the ruling was completely appropriate. If you recall, the committee was unanimous that "The evidence presented, while indicative of some areas of concern, does not demonstrate substantially disruptive editing on a level requiring sanctions from the Committee." The Committee also instructed both of us to refrain from interacting with each other -- an instruction you violated by reverting my changes to a page. You then compounded the violation by blaming arbcomm for your edit-warring behavior. csloat (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Biophys

This question has been answered previously by Kirill. He explained that we should simply avoid each other, no matter how. Obviously, we can not edit the same articles if we can not communicate. So, I suggested not to edit any articles that csloat edited before me, and vice versa. As long as we both followed this rule it worked very well. All the sudden, csloat came to Nuclear terrorism article that I extensively edited earlier in connection with Alexander Litvinenko, Category:Nuclear terrorism, and other related subjects. He deleted without discussion large portions of relevant and sourced text. For some reason he decided to delete texts previously included by me. This sounds as a violation of the previous Arbcomm ruling... He then started communicating with me and asked me to debate his deletions, which would be a violation of Arbcomm ruling from my side. Therefore, I did not discuss anything and communicated only with other users at the article talk page. If there are any further instructions from Arbcomm, I am ready to follow them, although I do not complain about anything. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited Nuclear terrorism first time on 19 July 2007, please see the diff and please check content I included. Csloat edited this article first time on 10 October 2007; please see his edit summary. I check every article before editing to make sure that csloat did not edit it earlier than me. In that case he did not.Biophys (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC) If he edited article Terrorism before me, I am ready remove all my edits in this article. Actually, nothing left after edits by alleged Giovanni33 socks.Biophys (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

To summarize, this complaint by csloat and his repeated deletions of the sourced text in Nuclear terrorism only serve to illustrate his point that he is not happy with the previous Arbcomm ruling, or perhaps to show that he is not going to comply with Arbcomm ruling Biophys (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

---

Request to amend prior case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

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

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [3]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

MartinPhi has begun editing WP:CIVIL in ways that make it more strongly prejudicial to his opponents. He mentions ScienceApologist as one of the users he wants it to come down more strongly on:

“ Yes, he said it very well indeed. And thanks for archiving (: For many months I have watched people poison the atmosphere, and, for example, call certain "groups of people" who just happened to be present, stuff like "moronic" "woo-woos" "crazies" "nutcases" etc. It has NOT been dealt with. In fact in the case on one user it has not been dealt with even after ArbCom sanctions about civility ”

The bolding is Martinphi's, and for anyone with even a passing knowledge of MartinPhi-ScienceApologist, it's obvious who he's referring to in that sentence.

See also [4] (wants certain words to be "actionable" in themselves.) [5] List of his highly-biased examples of presumably actionable words, including, of all things, "POV-pusher"] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ACivility&diff=207794751&oldid=207779327 (Argues against letting other people know editing of the page is ongoing, because people who are against his views might be brought in)

I have spoken to him on his talk page: [6] his response was to ask me:

“ Why didn't you ask ScienceApologist not to edit CIV? ”

ScienceApologist's only edits to WP:CIV were to revert Martinphi's POV pushing on that page, as far as I can tell, and thhe last one was over a week ago. Martinphi is still editing today.

To Martinphi: Your edit by SA is from 17 April, his last one to WP:CIV is 23 April, and the number is fairly small. Only one comment from him is on the current talk page, and it's from 18 April. If you want Science Apologist cautioned, you have to actually tell someone when it happens, not expect them to do it retrospectively two weeks later. You, however, have been much more visibly active on both the policy page and the talk page for several weeks (SA's edit to mainspace seem entirely devoted to reverting additions by you), and mention him as a major reason for your changes on the talk page. The evidence against you is far stronger. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To Tom Butler: Science Apologist has not come out and said that he is editing the pages to get at Martinphi, but the reverse situation has occured. As for Littleolive oil, I apologise, I did not know how to investigate and get at the truth, so mentioned a preliminary observation that I probably shouldn't have. I have deleted it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Martinphi is still one of the most active people on WP:CIV, so it might be nice to have some statement on whether that's appropriate soon. If it is, fine, but I'd like to hear some statement on that soon. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

This editing of WP:CIVIL is being done by three sides, so let's not look at just one. The three sides are: pro-science, pro-pseudoscience, and a few neutrals. Of course, it's merely one facet of the larger debate which currently has at least three separate threads going in various places at arbcom. I say again, serious most stringent remedies need to be put in place on this area quickly. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

I have edited CIV, and participated on the talk page, and my experience is in one of the most uncivil parts of Wikipedia- the paranormal. My experience has given me an excellent perspective for editing that page. Where would an editor gain experience needed to edit CIV? At articles where everyone gets along? The paranormal involves many editors who are highly uncivil, for example calling people or groups "deletionists," "believers in scientism" "true believers," "nutcases," or morons." The Arbitrators have already been treated to a large amount of evidence on this. So I'll just say that no, SA is an Archetypal case, but not by far the only one. SA also edited CIV, removing exactly the stuff he often does [7]. Shoemaker didn't warn him, even when I asked why he only warned me, claiming SA isn't editing CIV.[8] I hadn't been editing there recently till he called my attention to it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker says:

"Science Apologist has not come out and said that he is editing the pages to get at Martinphi, but the reverse situation has occured."

Never said that. Mentioned him as an extreme case. This is a serious misrepresentation, AKA false evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Public statement

I am getting EXTREMELY TIRED of people calling me things like "pro pseudoscience" sometimes in a subtle way as I believe Rlevse does above (if I'm wrong, you can stop reading now). If Rlevse can find ONE INSTANCE where I have been pro pseudoscience, I would like to see it. I would immediately take it back. I feel very insulted that someone like Rlevse would say that to me, as I strive to always be on the side of good sourcing and science (see recent history of Reiki). If I'm wrong, and Rlevse feels I'm one of the neutrals, I'd like him to tell me so. Otherwise, I would like him to stop insulting me by characterizing me in front of the ArbCom as pro-pseudoscience.

But I see absolutely no reason why I should put up with insults from an ArbCom clerk on this page. I expect insults from SA and his friends, but I would expect that an ArbCom clerk would be neutral, or at least get his facts straight. Or, if there is a legitimate difference of opinion, that he would be able to provide diffs to support such a characterization. Either he can't, or I really need to rethink my editing on Wikipedia. But at the very least, why has Rlevse drunk the poisoned rhetoric that SA and company spew about my supposed pseudoscientific POV?

Why am I putting this here? Because I want to make a public statement which the ArbCom members themselves might read: stop characterizing me that way, or support it with evidence. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Butler

This is a frivolous complaint. Shoemaker's Holiday is the editor who recently used the "Be Bold" excuse to hijack the Civility article with out discussing his massive changes. I can see now that his boldness has turned to advocacy for ScienceApologist's desire to water down civility so that it is acceptable for him to call people a moron[9]. In fact, SA is the one who has had to be reverted because he repeatedly removed "moron" from the article where it was used as an example of incivility [10].

Rlevse is correct in that there are several viewpoint being expressed, and Martinphi's is just one. Martin has also not shown a determination to resist consensus as you have.

Holiday, I would be careful about meatpuppet accusations without bringing evidence. Tom Butler (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Antelan

Given the situation between ScienceApologist and Martinphi, it is tragic, but probably predictable, that the argument has now moved up to the policy level. Regardless of the outcome, I would hope that Martinphi would not change the policy in an attempt to use his changes as a weapon against ScienceApologist, and vice versa. Antelan^talk 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

It may be appropriate for both editors to be prohibited from making edits to policies and guidelines in any way related to their disputes over the rules, if the arbs believe there is a stong possibility their rules edits may be related to their ongoing disputes. It's OK for people to have disagreements over interpretation of the rules, but it's not at all OK to bring that dispute into live policy. I see no indication that either user should be prohibited from contributing to the talk pages of those policies and guidelines. I don't see any reason to believe that either editor expressing their opinion and receiving feedback on the talk page should be a problem. Just a thought. *hands out salt grains* Vassyana (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would ask the arbitrators to review WP:FRINGE, both the current dispute and the general history of the guideline. It appears to often be a proxy battleground for the opposing sides in this general dispute, with some editors ignoring the requirements of consensus and general open collegial editing. Vassyana (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dreadstar

Since this subject has been raised, I think it may be helpful if ArbCom could clarify whether or not a number of SA’s comments violate his ArbCom restrictions on Civility and Assuming Good Faith, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist restricted. He is constantly being rude and insulting to editors he disagrees with, this continues despite many WP:AE reports (some of them frivolous, but some are very legitimate examples of SA violating his ArbCom restrictions). In virtually all the blocks, admins who seem to back his editing style push to have him unblocked or unblock him directly, sometimes against the consensus and objections of other Admins and editors, such as this.

Are ScienceApologist's edits uncivil, or are they acceptable behavior? Here are some examples; I know there are a lot, but there's really no single edit that is truly damning, it's the overall pattern, a constant stream of abusive, uncivil comments directed at his opponents: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Dreadstar † 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I'm always uncomfortable when editors involved in an interpersonal dispute modify core policy pages in a way which will presumably affect that dispute. When an editor has a history as... colorful... as Martin's, that's doubly true. Edits such as this, in which he adds several terms used by ScienceApologist in the context of creating a definition of "actionable" incivility, suggest a clear connection. I would be happier if Martin would restrict himself to discussion on the policy talk page rather than editing the policy directly. The same would go for ScienceApologist. I don't think that contentious editors pursuing a personal battle make good policy. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Raymond arritt

I broadly agree with the statement by Rlevse above. The best outcome would be if policy pages had wider scrutiny that was representative of the community as a whole. Does it bother anyone else that every policy describes itself as "a widely accepted standard" when in fact they are heavily influenced by battles between a very few editors? Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

<drive by comment> You could say the same about some articles... </drive by comment> Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Woonpton

I couldn't find an empty template, so I just copied the one above, hope that's acceptable.

I've been surprised and dismayed and a little confused, between reading the "Governance Reform" discussion where it seems to be agreed that it's very difficult to change policy even when there is consensus in the entire community, to find how easily a few people can change policy willy nilly as in this case, simply by editing policy pages. But I wouldn't characterize the current dispute as a battle between "pro-science" and "pseudoscience" editors per se; instead I would say what is happening is that a few people are trying to change the policy to broaden the definition of incivility, and a few other people are (rightly, in my opinion) reverting it back to the status quo. I don't see the reverters as "changing policy" to further an agenda, but simply respecting the principle that policy should only be changed with broad community consensus. Woonpton (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I agree that it would be better that policy pages - and, especially, such crucial ones as this - were better monitored and had a wider gamut of participation. However, I don't see that, beyond exhorting greater involvement by the community at large, there is much that the Committee can usefully do. James F. (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: /Davenbelle 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. Jack Merridew was later indef blocked per the same WP:AN discussion a little while later. 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 [23]. 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)

To put it mildly I am tired of the charade Davenbelle had put me through. He has only wasted community time and still does. The signal-to-noise ratio is just too intense. -- Cat ^chi? 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to @echo the #Statement by Chunky Rice and thank Chunky Rice for the decent observation. -- Cat ^chi? 19:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Since arbcom is discussing the possible lifting of sanctions from Jack Merridew, maybe arbcom would be interested to also look into lifting my mediation restriction form the ancient case which was passed 4-3.

It is not that I am very interested in mediation, the remedy has done its job and successfully alienated me from the mediation related tasks. The remedy only exists as an eyesore that will stay there forever. The self termination of "officially appointed to the Mediation Committee" is an impossible case scenario. Mediation Committee will not officially appoint a person sanctioned from participating in mediation.

-- Cat ^chi? 09:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jack Merridew

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)

• Erm, no, Black Kite, this is not a normal situation. This is an editor with a pretty serious past record (which I am sure he will agree with), thus the circumstances should dictate some form of significant consensus conditional upon their return. A significant number of editors found his edits contentious and thus would not support an unblock. The only reason the editor should be allowed to return is if their return is an unequivocal net positive - the last thing we need is yet more drama at AfD. Your position on AfD is not unilateral and the divergence is consensus enough to make it a factor to take into consideration here. Policy at AfD is liberal enough to be interpreted and gamed by many editors. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Cube_lurker

As I stated in the unblock thread this unblock was outrageous. The discusion took place while the entire US was in darkness. The fact that an abussive sockuppeteer and liar recieved only a 1 month cool off was despicable. This case needs to be accepeted not only to reinforce the discipline to the sockpupeteer but to send a message to admins that unblocks in the dark of night are unaccaptable in a consensus driven environment.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note to arbcom and the clerks, this case should include User:Ryan_Postlethwaite as a participant.

Statement by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles

I have had some pleasant discussions with Jack on my talk page (see here and here), so I think there is a potential for article improvement from this editor and I am more than willing to renew those discussions and efforts to work to improve those and other articles. My concern is AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hand of Doom in which Jack said "Not notable, no significant coverage," when editors were able to argue the exact opposite and thus the article was kept. Similar examples include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boalisk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode), and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osyluth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. In other words, time could have been more constructively spent in the effort to help build those articles or if he just didn't like them for whatever reason to instead work on improving articles he does like. My other concern is this thread. Those who supported a block there based on evidence that turned out to be accurate, but was dismissed at the time, were essentially mocked for it. What would have been the results of that proposal if the circumstances that did lead up to the idefinite block had occurred during the arbcom case? If then it was confirmed as was alleged that it was a resurrected user, would the arbs have indeed voted to sanction? Thus, the deceit and fact that those with suspicions were accused of assuming bad faith are a concern, not to mention that the case may have been incorrectly influenced as a result. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Peregrine Fisher

After doing the worst bunch of sock puppeting and wiki stalking I've ever heard of, Davenbelle made a bunch of friends (some admins) with his latest sock. The current precedent is sock and stalk all you want, as long as you make the right friends with your last sock. The correct precedent is that if you sock and stalk past a certain point (way past in this case) you will be banned forever. Imagine the amount of hours of White Cats life that have been effected by this. Imagine if White Cat had been a woman or child. It's completely unacceptable. No amount of good editing can make up for what Davenbelle did. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by R. Baley (talk)

This unblock is appalling. The Arbitration Committee only refused the case in April because they considered this editor banned. An unblock after a month off, gives a green-light to sock and stalk/harass as long as you make a few friends to back you up. This smells, R. Baley (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: Ryan has re-blocked for the time being (thanks Ryan), but he is also of the opinion that the Arbitration Committeee still needs to hear this (because admin(s?) are willing to unblock). On this I agree. As it appears that: (1) several administrators are in disagreement as to what should be done here, and (2) Ryan is uncomfortable with having his name on the blocking record, I urge the Arbitration Committee to provide some finality for this situation. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I think R. Baley has done a good job at putting my thoughts across in his second statement, but I'd like to elaborate. I first had an email off Jack stating that he had discussed a ban appeal with Newyorkbrad and he asked me if I would consider mentoring him. I personally think this is key to any unblock request he makes. Mentorship in this situation would allow Jacks constructive edits to continue, whilst making sure no disruptive behaviour continues.

White Cat has been here for a long time, he's done a lot of good work here in the face of adversity. It's important we recognise this here and make sure that we put a process in place (should Jack be unblocked) to stop any future problems that White Cat could face. As a possible mentor, I'd like to state clearly that should anything come to my attention of Jack stalking, or even attempting to engage White Cat, I would block right away, no questions asked. White Cat doesn't deserve any more problems from this user. This thing is however, I can see in Jacks account that he does care a lot about the project and has learnt a lot from his previous accounts. He's been sincere about his previous editing problems in private email with me, and I've been assured that there won't be any lapses in the future.

I think my unblock was premature - The consensus was towards unblocking and I really wasn't happy with my original block so I removed it. In hindsight, it would have been better to wait a little longer, but I really wanted Jack to offer his ideas on the AN thread as to editing restrictions because in discussion, he's been very open to a few that haven't been mentioned yet. I get the impression that he really wants to edit constructively. I would appreciate ArbComs thoughts here as there seem to be some admins who are willing to unblock (myself included) and there is clearly no longer a consensus for a community ban. There's people willing to watch like a hawk and offer advice/mentorship. I think we should give him a chance. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

The unblock was extremely inappropriate. The block was not Ryan's to undo in the face of opposition, especially as arbcom has chosen to decline cases based on the fact that the account was blocked.

This is White Cat's home wiki, and there should be no allowance for Jack Merridew to continue to harass White Cat.

Poetlister (talk · contribs) is an example of a reformed user. Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) is not (yet). I encourage Jack Merridew to follow the example of Poetlister - get involved in another Wikimedia project, make it your "home" wiki, and then appeal to arbcom in 12 months or more.

Statement by Chunky Rice

I'm somewhat concerned that much of the support/opposition for Jack Merridew's unblock splits along ideological lines. Many of the people supporting his unblock share his views regarding his efforts merge and remove fiction content. Similary, many of those who most strongly oppose his unblock are those that advocate strongly for keeping separate articles on fictional subjects and related trivia. I don't mean to suggest that every opinion has a bias of this nature, but simply that enough of it exists that determining a true consensus based on policy and not personal feelings is difficult. Therefore, it is my opinion, that if this user is to be unblocked, it should be done by ArbCom. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I believe I can see a third way, following the various statements above. It may be possible for Jack Merridew to contribute to Wikipedia in a limited fashion, with strong supervision. Rather than topic ban the editor should he return, might it be possible to agree which topics the editor may edit in advance - ensuring that there is little likelihood of antagonising other editors - on a repeating basis. Any person indicating that they do not wish to share article space with the editor should confirm their acceptance of the proposed topics; they then know not to edit those articles also. In this manner the editor can prove that they are able to constructively contribute without causing further disruption or getting involved in disputes with other editors. Should this trial be succesful then there could be considered moving a more general topic ban on articles where there is remaining distrust only. Those persons who had previously volunteered to mentor Jack Merridew would be appropriate supervisors, since they may consider themselves as having more to lose should the trial prove disasterous, and they are also editors in general good standing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Thank you, Ryan for recognizing your mistake. :-) As an arbitrator, I did not review the situation when WhiteCat requested it because the block had already happened. Since there were pre-existing issues, I think that input is needed from the Committee before this editor is allowed to contribute. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Committee is discussing the issue on the arbcom mailing list. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:40, 5 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,[24] administrators' noticeboard,[25] and fringe theory noticeboard.[26] 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)

Both sides throw reports at WP:AE, trying to see what will stick. Many admins are wary to block because of fears another admin that is sympathetic to the blockee will unblock. The remedies in place are not working and something has to be done about it. There are also significant agreements among admins about what constitutes civility. This leads to users who have mastered the art of being borderline incivil and getting away with it for years. A firm policy about this sort of incivility being blockable, long term if necessary, need to be put in place. Copied from my comment at WP:AE archive 20..."Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)"...Something has to be done here, this long term situation is highly divisive to the encyclopedic and takes way too admin effort to keep it within harmonic editing boundaries. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 4 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 [27]). 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)

Guy, most of us "believers" just want to have the articles you are complaining about explain what the subject is said to be or thought to be without trying to say what you think it is or what you want the public to believe. I would be interested in how you would apply the treatment used for articles on religious beliefs to paranormal articles. For instance, I suspect that not even members of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism would attempt to make Wikipedia say that the Catholic Church is not real. Can you apply a similar standard to the EVP article without characterizing as real or not real? Can you just say what it is reported to be? Doing so would certainly stop a lot of the content disputes. Tom Butler (talk) 21:30, 4 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)

Statement by JzG

There is a long-standing issue with pseudoscience, fringe and paranormal articles. The sources which discuss these subjects are typically either wholly uncritical, or dedicated sceptics. The fact that the mainstream science community does not accept paranormal claims is hard to source, because scientists do not publish papers saying that hokum is hokum. The result is a series of in-universe articles on fictional topics. Added to that, we have believers in these paranormal ideas whose primary function on Wikipedia is to attempt to have them documented as reality, not a fringe belief system.

I do believe we can make this work by applying the same methods as are applied in articles on religious belief systems. The article on Saint Alban documents the verifiable facts which are undisputed, being the identity and martyrdom, documented in local Roman records; discusses the mythology of the Holy Well; and discusses the cult of Alban. I think we can document the paranormal belief system in the same way, but we have too many people asserting that it is real. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Antelan

My own personal sentiment is that the current options for enforcement have not yet been applied in a stringent way, and should not be broadened until they have been fully tested. That said, I share Vassayana's frustration, and would hope that this will serve to push administrators to use the tools that they have been given. Antelan^talk 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

Given the occasionally contentious nature of the discussions regarding this subject, perhaps it might be possible for the ArbCom to help in the selection of a group of editors who would be able to function in much the same way as the recently created cultural disputes group is supposed to. It might also be useful for some of the religion and pseudoscience content as well, given the often disparate opinions there. Might it be possible to expand the remit of the existing cultural disputes group, and possibly its membership, to include these other matters as well, or alterntely create similar groups for these matters? John Carter (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Filll

Although I understand the desire to come up with a quick fix or a magic bullet here, I do not think that more enforcement is the answer. I have observed how well more enforcement and greater empowerment of admins worked at homeopathy and related articles, and I have to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. I have also encountered a fair number of administrators who are FRINGE proponents or antiscience themselves, so just giving all administrators more power is not a very well-reasoned response. I would like to see a more measured and careful approach for dealing with this kind of problem, such as those potential options being considered at the discussion lead by User:Raul654 at [28].--Filll (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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" [29] and [30] 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)

I'm going to expand a bit here, and register my objection to the term of his latest block as well. Recapping his first block: I agree that the tantrum that starts every time TTN edits an article is disruptive, but he is not the source of the disruption, his opponents are. He was blocked for editing Final Fight:Streetwise. He was criticised for removing about 80% of one of the cruftiest articles around, and turning it into a reasonable video game article. He made three different passes at it, and was reverted by Zero Giga and an anonymous IP. Each pass made an effort to address the previous concerns. This editing was broadly construed as requesting a deletion, so he got blocked for a week. Black Kite shows up a few days later, and, instead of removing 80% of the article, only removes 65% of the article. Not a peep. None of the editors that so cheerfully reverted TTN's edits wholesale found a single line of Black Kite's edits to object to. The only conclusion I can reach is that the editors that were reverting him were not motivated by the material: they were motivated by the fact that it was TTN that had made the removals. Now, in such a situation, what is the appropriate action for an admin to take? It's to go have a chat with the editors that reverted the change, and make sure that they are undoing the change as opposed to undoing the editor. Instead, admins looked at the arbcom decision, and stretched the interpretation of "deletion" well past its breaking point, and blocked TTN for a week. Notice that the Arbcom sanctions called for blockages increasing to a week in the event of repeated violations. Even if this edit had motivated a block, a week is complete overkill ... they reached for the biggest hammer in their toolkit as the first step.

Now, TTN has been blocked for two weeks, based on the perception that he is repeatedly violating his sanctions. His offending edit was to the Fiction Noticeboard. The community is reasonably split as to whether this falls under the restriction of "project pages" or under the freedom of "free to contribute on talk pages". I can see both sides, and think clarification is warranted. Still, worst case is that it is his first offense, and an offense that reasonable people can see as not an offense at all. For this, he was blocked for two weeks, despite the fact that the maximum sanction in the Arbcom decision is one week.

I think that not only is clarification needed, but a strong statement is needed that the phrase "broadly interpreted" does not mean "block TTN at the drop of a hat". I sense that there is a group of admins that have decided that the easiest way to end the controversy is to simply block TTN at the time that any dispute involving him occurs. Sanctions against an editor are a serious thing, and, in order to be meaningful, but be subject to reasonable interpretation. Editing articles cannot be interpreted as "requesting deletion", and "up to one week for repeated offenses" cannot be reasonably interpreted as "two weeks". Kww (talk) 13:26, 16 May 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)

Statement by TTN

Can I please get some sort of clarification on what exactly I can do and cannot do? Can I cleanup articles by removing information? That's that's what I was initially blocked for. Can I revert at all? Edit warring is bad, but to have a block sustained because of two reverts (where one revert is a anon with a non-static IP) seems a little steep without some sort of restriction on that in the first place. Can I suggest that things be merged on talk pages of users, projects, and other articles? I assumed that the restriction was towards templates, but I was scrutinized for doing so. Can I point out bad articles? I guess I wouldn't ask one user single again, but can I just post a list of "problem articles" on a project talk page or the Wikipedia:Fiction/Noticeboard, and let them take care of it? If this could be responded to quickly, that would be appreciated. TTN (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sjakkalle

I am not exactly sure where to put this statement, since there are already two requests for clarification here, but I want to register my concerns here.

I have a deep concern that the ArbCom's admonition 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. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. is not being followed at all. Let's see.

First, "Cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." (The redirection and unredirection of episodes and characters with little or no discussion is still taking place.)

Second, "...attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute.". Since the E&C2 case closed, I have seen at least two instances of parties from that case use the term vandalism. (And I have not been actively searching for these, there are probably more, from both sides of the dispute)

• Kww at 14:00, 1 April 2008 Regarding authors of fiction/fancruft articles: "I would happily treat people creating such articles as vandals, as opposed to editors". (After looking at E&C2, I see that Kww is not listed as a party, but since he initiated this clarification, and supportive of TTN, I think he is de facto party to it.)
• Eusebeus at 03:06, 6 May 2008 restores a redirect, calling the undoing of the redirect "vandalism". (And there are two more, here and here.)

I cannot imagine anything more inflammatory than calling the "other side" of the dispute "vandals".

This has got to stop.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence

Can we place get AC action on this? It's starting all over again: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_2_week_block_of_User:TTN. I know you guys are busy, but this appears to be now a critical case and clarification action is needed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:05, 14 May 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)

Arbitrator views and discussion

---

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:
  • [31] - asking another user to redirect a number of character articles (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [32] - suggesting a merge of character articles to another user (expressly forbidden in the Arbcom ruling)
  • [33] - 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)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The key to the remedy was requiring that TTN work through article or project talk pages. Asking other editors to perform edits for him, rather than engaging in talk page discussion, clearly violates the spirit of the remedy. If necessary I would support a motion altering the remedy to say something to the effect that TTN is restricted only to discussing such matters on talk pages, though I hope that TTN will refrain from this sort of thing on his own. --bainer (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just to echo Bainer's comment here, in the hope that it will help strengthen the clarity. I would also regretfully support the suggested modification if it is necessary, but would prefer no so to do. James F. (talk) 23:33, 16 May 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) [34]
• 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) [35]

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 [36]. 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 [37])—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.[38] 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[39] (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.[40]) 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, [41] 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)

Clerk notes

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)

Request to amend: September 11 conspiracy theories

Statement by Raymond Arritt

Recent discussion at WP:AE has brought up the possibility of sockpuppetry on 9/11 related articles. In order to make enforcement more straightforward, and to improve the editing atmosphere at those articles, I propose amending the discretionary sanctions such that users would be restricted to the use of a single account when editing that general topic area. I believe that such a restriction has been applied in other arbcom decisions and think it would be useful here. One might argue that an admin already is permitted to impose such a restriction under the broad provision in the sanctions regarding "behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators," but an explicit amendment of the sanctions would be clearer and more even-handed. Admins should of course make allowance for new editors unfamiliar with the situation, simple errors (such as forgetting to log in), and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

---