Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 04:01, 2 March 2008 (→‎Request for appeal: Octavian history: rm Octavian History, move to case talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions   10 May 2024 0/4/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Mzajac 7 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Current requests

Mikkalai

Initiated by Ryan Postlethwaite at 06:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I am bringing this straight to ArbCom rather than RfC which I hope you will understand given my statement. Mikkalai has decided to no longer take part in communication on the project. On February 21 Mikkalai placed a note on his talk page stating ” Since wikipedia is full of sickos happy to jump at conclusions, and since the adminship is infested with trigger-happy cowboys, I hereby pledge to not engage in any communication in wikipedia whatsoever.” [2] – Since then he has decided to rollback every single edit made to his talk page. Even though the notice was placed on his talk on the 21st, this has been going on for some time now – If you look at his talk history you will see that this has been going on for a while (even if comments weren’t rolled back, they have gone unanswered). On his talk page he has stated that if you come to discuss this issue with him then “this is a proof that you are a jerk and I am right.” An example of how this behaviour is problematic was his protection of Poon – he protected this after only one bad faith edit, and when concerns were raised, he rolled the talk page message back and responded on the article main page with the edit summary off my watchlist. you wikidrama lovers may keep bullshit off this page yourselves. This behaviour is completely unbefitting of an administrator – if he acted half as bad as he has been just before his RfA he wouldn’t have stood a chance of passing because the community do not want sysops that are unwilling to communicate. If new users come into contact with him, they will most likely not come back – Admins should act as role models, his behaviour is far from this. I’ve brought this straight here rather than after an RfC because I’m not sure what exactly we’re supposed to gain from an RfC – he’s already stated he’s unwilling to discuss any concerns that are brought up, and has continued to rollback people that have attempted to engage in discussion – an RfC would serve no purpose whatsoever. I ask that you accept this case to thoroughly evaluate Mikkalais’ recent behaviour and decide whether this is acceptable conduct of a sysop.

Statement by Marskell

On Feb 21 I blocked Mikka for twelve hours after he made this wild comment on AN/I: "Next time you start policing, please be advised than in some cultures calling someone "ass" will have your throat cut." This occurred in the middle of a thread where Mikka's civility was already being questioned. (The block was overturned by User:Maxim, wrongly IMO, but I am considering that sub-issue resolved.) The "solemn pledge of muteness" on his talk page is a petulant attack on his fellow administrators and, basically, anyone who disagrees with him. Mikka is burnt out. Aggressive, defiant, unreasonable, incivil—you name it. Anyone who tries to talk to him, however politely, is a wikilawyer. The defence that's been mounted on his behalf is one that the committee has heard before: he contributes copious material to the mainspace. This does not excuse incivility—both Jimbo and Arbcom have made that clear previously. I agree that an RfC will achieve nothing, as the user will ignore it. Many people have been commenting on AN/I but the community has not come up with a coherent plan to deal with the situation. I urge the committee to take this case and decide whether it is appropriate for Mikka to retain his sysop status. We don't want to lose those mainspace contributions, of course, and I'd also suggest that anyone who's communicated with Mikka privately in the past, try to do so now. Marskell (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. JzG suggests help and support. Yes, certainly—but that can't provided if he reverts everyone. The only way this will move in a positive direction, I suspect, is if people who have previously communicated with him off-site do so now. It can end easily: he removes the enflamed wording from his talk and clarifies here that he will be responsive to polite, good faith comments in future. This might be followed by a wikibreak to catch his breath. I'm sure people will give him the benefit of the doubt. Marskell (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Mikka is a long-standing defender of NPOV against relentless attempts to skew content in articles related to Russia and Eastern Europe. As a result, he is mercilessly trolled. Has anyone tried applying help and support here? We really don't need to lose one of our few Russian-speaking admins. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who have have been dismissed as out of touch, abusive, etc... Maxim(talk) 13:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re run by children - I believe college age Americans are the largest demographic, hence the almost hysterical reactions to use of invective. The use of anglo-saxon in everyday speech is not at all uncommon in the UK, and I know several Russians whose command of the coarser parts of English is as comprehensive as mine. Mikka is over 40, as am I, and I reckon that some at least of those Mikka deals with him relish the ability to get under the skin of someone of their parents' generation. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EconomicsGuy

I'm gonna stand up to be counted here because this is exactly what I've been complaining about for 2 weeks now. This all began with a thread titled Mikka gone mad on AN/I. In usual fashion an astounding number of users decided to offer their 2 cents without much effort to actually solve what was a minor issue. Should Mikka be reminded to consider his choice of words to ensure that the tone does not blur the message? Sure. Do we need an ArbCom case for that to happen? No. There are bigger fish to fry here, they are called POV pushers and are largely allowed to continue their disruption that drives good people like Valentinian away because not enough sysop time is available to deal with them. In other words, this matter has been a waste of valuable sysop time and I urge ArbCom not to encourage that by accepting this case. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

I endorse what Ryan Postelthwaite has said. Blight on Wikipedia is caused by multiple processes. When Mikkalai acts capriciously and refuses to explain or discuss with other users, he contributes to loss of good users by creating the appearance that sysops may do whatever they please, and do not need to answer to ordinary users. Good users are a scalable resource for negating the effects of POV pushers.

One reason Mikkalai may get trolled mercilessly is that he overreacts and violates decorum when trolled. Trolls enjoy emotional reactions and predictably, a sysop who behaves that way will get trolled more frequently. Hardened POV pushers are not scared away by nasty comments. No, that sort of treatment only runs off the good users. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crotalus horridus

Arbcom has ruled in the past, most notably in the Bluemarine case, that being the victim of trolling and harassment is not carte blanche for incivil behavior. That needs to be applied here. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and for any user (but especially an administrator) to simply refuse to communicate with other good-faith users is simply not acceptable. *** Crotalus *** 14:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Until(1 == 2)

While it is true that Mikkalai has been subject to unkind treatment by those who have a POV, it does not excuse incivility or refusal to communicate. What is more is that it is well known that uncivil response to trolls only encourages them. It is called feeding the trolls, and it is a great reason why trolls are no excuse for poor behavior. If those in question are not trolls then the reaction is doubly inappropriate. Being nasty is never the correct reaction to those who disagree with you, if they are trolls, POV pushers or just another user.

It certainly does not excuse the "throat cutting" comment. This issues regarding incivility and refusal to communicate go back a long time with this user. I personally have given civility warnings to this user in the past on multiple occasions receiving responses ranging from "Acknowledged" to being completely ignored. Othesr have also given such warnings only to be rolled back like their attempt to talk was vandalism, no change in behavior results.

It makes Wikipedia seem as though it is ran by children when its admins resort to swearing and insults then refuse to talk. Good contributions are not license to act without civility or a guarantee of impunity.

I too have been harassed here in the past, rather badly and I sympathize with this user. But this has gone a step further where anyone who criticizes his actions is accused of "witch hunting, militant paranoia, kangaroo courts, and wikilawyering". It does not seem to matter how respected the person talking to him, their level of politeness, or how correct they are, he calls lumps them all in the same class and uses his rollback tool. Being harassed does not excuse or even explain why he is lashing out anyone who does not accept his behavior.

An administrator who has refused to discuss their use of the tools has in my opinion effectively resigned. An admin that both uses their tools and refuses to discuss such use has become a liability to Wikipedia, not an asset. (1 == 2)Until 15:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coppertwig

There are three questions here: What is the minimum tolerated standard of behaviour for (1) a Wikipedian editor, (2) a rollbacker, and (3) an administrator? The third question is the most important. An uncivil editor harms the project, but an uncivil administrator has power to do things others can't undo and more importantly, is seen as being endorsed by the community and can therefore wreak havoc on Wikipedia's reputation and on general standards of behaviour. Others are much more likely to use a bad example as an excuse for their own behaviour if the bad example is set by an administrator.

I see four problems with Mikkalai's behaviour: (1) A "vow of silence" announcement on the talk page discouraging posts there, (2) Generalized insults on the talk page ("sickos", "jerk" etc.) directed against broad classes of people who might come to visit the talk page, (3) a habit of reverting talk page posts without responding to them, and (4) inappropriate use of admin tools in semi-protecting the page Poon. (Just before protecting, Mikkalai reverted the page, violating protection policy in my opinion. It appears to me that that reverted edit, although it mentioned genitalia, was not vandalism, but was part of a content dispute and similar to edits supported by other editors [3] [4] [5] [6]; such edits had also been reverted by Mikkalai, making it seem less likely that Mikkalai mistakenly thought the last such edit was vandalism. Even if the edit were considered to be vandalism, the amuont of such edits was not such as to justify protecting the page.)

In my opinion, the generalized talk page insults are not tolerable for any Wikipedian editor (per NPA) and the user should be required to remove them or stop editing. IMO the deletion of talk page messages without responding may be marginally tolerable for an editor under most or possibly all circumstances; it may depend on what types of situations actually come up; but it is not acceptable for an administrator to do this regularly. Per this Arbcom decision I suppose it is not acceptable for any editor. I haven't checked the whole talk page history, but even if it has no unanswered questions about Mikkalai's admin actions, that proves nothing: the user did carry out admin actions, and users with questions about them may have been discouraged from posting their questions by the "vow of silence" etc. The "vow of silence" is more of a problem, IMO, than simply deleting talk page messages, and is probably unacceptable IMO for an editor who carries out actions such as reverts, and definitely unacceptable for an administrator carrying out actions such as deletion, blocking or page protection. IMO the proection of Poon, unless it can be justified, requires at minimum an admission from Mikkalai that it was a mistake.

I sympathize with Mikkalai, have begun to watchlist the user talk page and am planning to try to help the user. However, the insults and uncommunicative behaviour, if allowed to continue, would tend to spark, in never-ending reverberations and escalations throughout Wikipedia, the same sort of negative behaviour which is presumably the cause of Mikkalai's currrent behaviour. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SqueakBox

In light of Jpgordon's statement I would support acceptance of a case re admin action issues here but ideally renamed to Rfa/admin responsibilities or something along those line, we've had rfa:The troubles and some kind of naming that doesn't actually mention anyone's name would be appropriate, albeit involving the issues others and Ryan address here. Mikkalai is clearly one of our most experienced editors and admins whom I became aware of as a vandalism fighting newbie when he dropped me a note reminding me to check the contribs of obvious vandals in order to revert all their bad calls (so Mikkalai is more than capable of and has a track record of helping out newbies). I also think we need to be very aware that Mikkalai is not a native English speaker nor has he spent substantial time in an English speaking environment so we need to not read too much into his words (and I say this as someone with experience in this language area). Otherwise I am definitely in agreement with Guy's statement in this case, and endorse what he says above, but re Jpgordon if this was to become a case concerning how admins should behave I would certainly have evidence, and while involving one other particular admin its not that admin who I want to see censored but I would like to see certain issues re admin behaviour clarified by the arbcom, and these issues are here too. I would add that Ryan was right in bringing this here and not to an Rfc. That would have been highly inappropriate in this case and mediation attempts are very evident in Mikkalai's talk history. What I am uncomfotable with is this being a case involving just Ryan amnd Mikkalai and I think the list of involved parties needs greatly expanding, starting with Marskell, perhaps all of us who haven't posted as uninvolved in this section, and that is only a start. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved ^demon

While I think all users (especially administrators) should leave lines of communication open to others. This helps foster collaboration and keeps the atmosphere open and inviting. This being said, under no circumstances should a user be required to talk with others if they do not wish to do so. If there are issues of abuse of powers, that is for another discussion. ^demon[omg plz] 18:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by uninvolved Viridae

Communication is paramount from an admin. Refusal to communicate regarding your actions is a big problem as others have stated. However, it is less of problem, that should arbcom desysop him over this, I am sure they would be happy to grant his tool back at a later stage if he pledges to communicate about his admin actions in the manner expected by the community. ViridaeTalk 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved GRBerry

The Gustafson RFC followed by RFAR would be the closest precedent - an admin who was repeatedly deleting their talk page without communicating. At ANI, I encouraged going to RFC and then RFAR. Instead we got another ANI thread. Lets use the dispute resolution system... which means going to RFC before coming here. GRBerry

Statement by uninvolved Wikidemo

As a non-admin with some interest in administrative matters, I can attest that when administrators act arbitrarily, uncivilly, unpredictably, against policy, without communication, etc., it causes some serious stress, erosion of faith in the project, and a desire to spend time somewhere else. So the harm to the encyclopedia is magnified greatly beyond the weight of the specific administrative action at hand.

We cannot let this one sit. The tools are Wikipedia's to distribute as the community sees fit to help the project, not the property of one administrator to do with as he pleases. Our system is often ineffective for bringing problem administrators into line. It would be a shame if we cannot handle such a simple, obvious case.

I see only two possible resolutions. Either Mikkalai accepts the duties that come as a requirement of using administrative tools, in this case communication, or he does not. If he will not use the tools in the way required by policy he must not use the tools. If he declares that he is never again going to use the tools properly, then after making all reasonable patient efforts to encourage him to change his mind we should take them back. It's his choice. His passive-aggressive reaction to the AN/I case and this Arbcom request so far[7] is not encouraging.

While this case is ongoing there ought to be an injunction that if Mikkalai again uses tools he must respond reasonably to any good faith attempt to communicate on the subject and not act to discourage inquiries. As a resolution that injunction should be made long-term, with the additional proviso that if he breaks the injunction or does not resume normal use of tools after a reasonable period (say one month), he is desysopped without the need for further proceedings.

Mikkalai is (apparenty) a grown man, and we are not baby sitters. It would be swell if a colleague could talk him out of his tree on this, but I think we've gone pretty far as it is. So other than giving it a little time, I don't see the use of making any official offer of compassion part of the formal resolution.

Statement by partially-involved User:Save Us 229

I'm not going to elaborate much here on the requests page with diffs and the such (I will save that for the evidence page if this passes, and it should).

Mikkalai has been an established member of this community for a long time and one and a few when it comes to dealing with trolling editors and NPOV pushers, but his conduct has been hurtful to this project over the last few weeks inparticular. There are multiple threads on WP:AN/I that have detailed Mikkalai being very incivil with comments going as far as an editor feeling physically threatened by what Mikkalai said. After that incident happened, Mikkalai decided that communication was going to cease between himself and the Wikipedia community, which (next to civility) is the key issue surrounding this case. It was previously decided at the Arbitration that Gustafson was temporarily desysopped for being unresponsive to the community and this is the same principle being applied to this request for arbitration.

A week into his, literal, pledge of muteness, he made controversial actions leading up to another AN/I thread which almost concluded with the consensus of giving Mikkalai a warning that furthuring admin actions and Xfd closures without any discussion, that he will be brought to arbitration. While that discussion was ongoing is when I became partially involved with the editor.

Mikkalai decided to semi-protect the article Poon. Normally this wouldn't be a problem without communication of some kind, but he semi-protected the article after only one instance of a user adding something strange (the edit by the anonymous IP address should have been removed, but I'm not sure you could even classify it as vandalism). The main reasons protection are added, I felt, were violated since this was a simple, isolated incident (any other kind of request for protection would had been rightfully denied). Not only was it an inappropriate protection, he protected the one minor incident until May 2, 2008 (over 2 months). I felt it was inappropriate and asked him to remove it. His reply was to simply revert my message, as he has done with everyone else's messages to him in the week. The article was unprotected by an uninvolved administrator after he/she determined it was also inappropriate. His reply to myself and the unprotecting administrator in an edit summary was "you wikidrama lovers may keep bullshit off this page yourselves".

I ask the ArbCom to accept this case to review the actions of Mikkalai fully to determine whether or not he should keep his sysop bit. Thank you, — Save_Us † 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/1)

  • Comment: I am holding off on voting to accept the case for the present, in the hope that Mikkalai will make a statement indicating that he will change his policy or modify his behavior, and thus make a case less necessary. As attested in some of the statements above, Mikka works hard in some areas where we need more, rather than less, administrator attention, and has done so for a long time, and is entitled to respect for that and to some understanding at times when things grow stressful. Thus, I very much hope that the issues can be worked out soon, short of the further stresses of an arbitration case. But if something doesn't change, then we are going to have to accept either this case or a future one before too much longer, because we really can't have an administrator whose rule is that as a matter of principle he won't communicate with anyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. I'm thinking this would be a good opportunity to clarify our expectations regarding the communication responsibilities of admins. Is it OK to clam up? Is it OK to not make email contact available? (Though that's not an issue in this particular case.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Kirill 03:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian apartment Bombings

Initiated by Caesar Augustvs (talk) at 09:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Caesar Augustvs

Dear commitee, I would like to ask you to help us solving the following problem: The opponent party is trying to distort the impartial information by describing in the introduction the opinion of the "independent investigation commission" only in parts, so the impression is given, that if this commission only had access to the documents they inquired they would have accused the FSB as well. In opposite to this, high ranked member of the commission published the information I wish to include following to the statement they included- but the opponents insist this information to be not important enough or might have changed (even though never gave any source backing up this suggestion)

kind regards Maxim

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

  • Decline. This appears to be a two-party content dispute. It should be resolved through ordinary procedures of dispute resolution such as requesting a third opinion, an article-content request for comment, or if eventually necessary mediation. It does not require the complexities and delays of arbitration, which is the last step in dispute resolution and generally does not resolve disagreements over content. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Brad. Kirill 13:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Follow the suggestions of Newyorkbrad to involve more editors and administrators in resolving the dispute. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. This is a dispute over the content of a small set of articles, which is not appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to hear. I recommend Caesar Augustus takes the courses outlined by Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Paul August ☎ 05:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per the above opinions. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Clarifications and other requests

Shortcut

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications in this section. 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. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking_3

Initiated by Avruch T at 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avruch

I would ask the Committee to again reconsider the remedies of the Everyking3 case, including its recently passed motion responding to Everyking's appeal. I've written my concerns to the Committee mailing list, but the message is being held for moderator approval. The two motions considered by the Committee upon revisiting the remedies in this case both enjoyed the support of a majority of the Committee but are clearly contradictory.

Motion 1 eliminates all but one remedy and implies approval of the appeal, while Motion 2 leaves two remedies intact and applies an additional, unconsidered remedy that limits the ability of the subject of this case to file additional appeals and implicitly disapproves of the appeal as filed. The apparent contradiction and the fact that the outcome does not appear to take the requested outside views into account calls into question whether the Committee fully considered the elements of this case before Motion 2 was found to have passed.

With respect, Avruch T 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional, responding to Arbitrators comments so far

Comments so far have focused exclusively on the procedural issue of the motions and the order of passage. I don't disagree that this is partly the source of the confusion - observers not walking through the history to see the votes in progress will see that both motions pass, but only motion 2 is considered in effect. Still, if motion 1 passed second and represents a significant deviation from motion 2, the import of that should be considered.

Even so, the substantive issue appears to be more important to me - aside from which motion should have effect based on Committee procedure, it is clear regardless that both motions had a majority support of the same Committee and largely the same members and yet they clearly contradict eachother in meaning. Why would the same members support in one moment a continuation of only one remedy and a lifting of all other sanctions and in another moment support continuing two remedies and adding a third? There doesn't appear to be evidence indicating an abuse of the appeal process by Everyking, so what is the unenumerated justification for limiting his ability to appeal? Connections have been drawn to the US Supreme Court, where summary judgments without greater explanation are not uncommon - I think it would be a mistake for the Committee to adopt this habit, because the community of which the Committee is a part requires greater clarity.

Respectfully, Avruch T 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

It looks like three participating Arbitrators have expressed a willingness to revote the items of the motions separately, and three have not. What is the next step on this before it gets archived as stale? Avruch T 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved User Jay*Jay

I do not recall ever having edited with Everyking and so can make no comment on his actions or the ArbCom sanctions. However, I am greatly concerned by the way the appeal has been handled and want to strongly endorse Avruch's request for a reconsideration. My concern is two-fold. Firstly, as Avruch has noted and the related AN discussion shows, the imposition of a new restriction on making an appeal appears punitive. The philosophy underling sanctions (bans, blocks, etc) is supposed to be to protect the encyclopedia and to prevent disruption. I fail to see how this restriction pursues either aim, as no suggestion of disruption has been made, and the ArbCom believed the appeal was sufficiently warranted to debate and pass two separate ammednment motions, both of which reduce the sanctions on Everyking. The situation is akin to a court finding for the plaintiff and then ordering that the plaintiff pay costs for both parties. It is, frankly, bizarre.

My second concern relates to the contradiction which has also been noted elsewhere. This diff includes the entire appeal case immediately prior to it being archived. I suggest that the summary of the motion presented on the case page and the relating modification is in error, for the following reasons:

  1. Motions require a majority of 8 to pass, and motion 1 passes 8-2 with 1 abstention - there is no requirement, as I understand it, for a net vote of 8, merely a simple majority.
  2. Motion 2 is recorded as passing 11-1. However, this count is only correct if Newyorkbrad's vote is taken as an 'oppose'. His vote actually stated that it "should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support" - showing that the passing of motion 1 was recognised.
  3. Four ArbCom members (Newyorkbrad, FT2, Paul August, and Sam Blacketer) expressly noted a preference for motion 1 over motion 2. Although only Newyorkbrad expressly noted that such a preference means opposition of motion 2 if motion 1 passes, a reasonable interpretation (in light of motion 1's passing) would be that motion 2 actually has 8 supports and 4 neutral/oppose votes.

Possible resolutions: There are several ways in which this contradiction can be resolved. They include:

  • Passing only motion 1 as motion 2 has more opposition than does motion 1 - problematic, as it remains the case that both should pass.
  • Asking Deskana, who expressly states that "either is fine", to form a preference, thus supporting only one motion and being neutral or opposing the other - thereby resolving which motion passes.
  • Ask for reconsideration by some or all of Kirill, FloNight, and Blnguyen, each of whom also supported both motions, to express a preference for a single motion and neutrality or opposition towards the other - which would also resolve which motion passes.
  • I do not see any additional clarity is gained by reconsideration by any of the four remaining ArbCom members who voted (UnivitedCompany, Charles Matthews, bainer, and jpgordon), as each has indicated a clear preference (either in comment or by vote) for motion 2 over motion 1. However, there were (at the time of the appeal) three other active ArbCom members who have noted voted and who could. I am not sure that this would be helpful, as no vote by them could alter the fact that both motions received the support needed to pass.

I strongly believe that the appeal should be reopened, as the present outcome is not only unjust and inequitable (in adding a new appeal restriction), but also seriously flawed by internal contradiction. Two conflicting motions should not ever be passed, and the need for clarity for the community strongly indicates that ArbCom should re-open the appeal to resolve the ambiguity as a matter of urgency. The are obviously other possible appraoches to providing clarity that the Committee could adopt - simply holding a fresh vote on each motion would be one, provided members recognised that supporting both motions is unsatisfactory if suitabke caveats are not noted. I have no stake in what solution is adopted, although believe that the appeal restriction appears punitive and unjustified; however, I implore the Committee members to act to provide clarity. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I note that there has also been discussion here on Thatcher's talk page about the closure and the interpretation of two passing motions. That discussion further serves to highlight the unsatisfactory and subjective approach applied in situations such as this. I have absolutely no doubt that Thatcher acted in good faith in trying to resolve the situation, but it is impossible to escape the conclusion that ArbCom passed two contradictory motions. Leaving the interpretation of that action to the discretion of a single Clerk - who in this case chose to disregard a passed motion - is unacceptable. Wjbscribe's analysis below shows that the opposite result can be obtained by another reasonable interpretation of passing two motions - actually applying both, in either sequence. The fault here lies squarely with ArbCom, as it was their actions that have created the ambiguity. It is up to ArbCom to resolve this problem. I have proposed several possible approaches. Wjbscribe provides another, in that ArbCom could simply affirm that both motions passed and that both must be applied. Newyorkbrad provides another, in that individual votes could be held on each individual modification. Please, re-open the appeal, and act to fix the problem that you have created. It is reasonable to leave to admin discretion and community interpretation what enforcement might be required for any breach of an ArbCom-imposed sanction, but it is not reasonable to require discretion of a Clerk or anyone else be used in determination of what are those sanctions. ArbCom acts careful to avoid such ambiguity by passing only single and unambiguous sanctions in its cases, and has erred in not acting carefully with respect to the motions in the appeal. Rectifying this error is necessary and urgent, as the present ambiguity is unacceptable. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Comment from Thatcher: The problem is concisely illustrated when Thatcher sighes that the two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. The problem, of course, is that they did both pass. The correctness or otherwise of any analysis of conditional votes is irrelevant. Analysis should never be required to interpret whether a binding decision was made, and such analysis cannot alter the unarguable fact that both motions did pass. The fact that the present analysis results in the application of a new restriction on Everyking simply makes the situation worse. The origin of the ambiguity lies in ArbCom passing contradictory motions, and only ArbCom can address the situation. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WJBscribe

I emailed the following analysis to ArbCom yesterday:

My understanding of the process is as follows: 8 Arbitrators is a majority. Proposals supported by 8 or more Arbitrators pass.

In this case, two motions were supported by 8 or more Arbitrators, therefore logically both must pass. A majority of Arbitrators have supported lifting the following sanctions against Everyking through their support of motion #1:

  1. Remedy 5 of EK
  2. The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3

It does not seem to matter which motion passed first. If motion #1 passed first, these remedies no longer existed to be "continued" by motion #2. If motion #2 passed first, these remedies were then terminated by the passing of motion #1. The latter scenario seems to have occured here as motion #2 reached a majority first. Motion #1 should not have been ignored simply because motion #2 passed as it too enjoyed a majority. The fact that one motion enjoyed more support than the other does not seem relevant as the criteria for passage is reaching a majority, not the greatest majority. Looked at another way, if motion #1 were voted on now and reached the same level, it would clearly take effect.

In this case, it seems to me that both motions have passed and come into effect by result of being supported by 8 Arbitrators. The only remedy Everyking therefore remains subject to is: Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer). And he is (through motion #2) restricted from appealing that remedy more than once a year.

Therefore I believe a further post to AN is required informing the community of the effects of motion #1 passing (that two of the sanctions continued by motion #2 are now terminated), and that Everyking should be notified that the sanctions against him are further reduced by the success of that motion. The present result means that although Everyking gained the support of a majority of the full Committee for lifting those 2 sanctions, he remains subject to them. I do not believe this to be a fair result. WjBscribe 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by David Mestel

In my view, the most significant problem here resulted from the fact that the motions were listed as "1" and "2", rather than "1" and "1.1", as is the norm where there are multiple alternative proposals (see, for example, here), and the correct action would have been to renumber them accordingly; perhaps it would be a good idea for the committee to make clear that it is happy for clerks to do this when proposals are clearly incompatible (such as these proposals in Ehud Lesar), subject obviously to reversion if arbitrators disagree. Notwithstanding this, there is considerable ambiguity as to how alternative proposals should be resolved, and I would respectfully commend to the committee my proposals here, subject to rewriting for clarity. I understand and accept Newyorkbrad's point that they are rather complex, but in my submission this should not be too much of a problem, since they are to be applied by clerks who presumably have studied and understood them, and any editors who object to or are puzzled by a result are also likely to have sufficient motivation also to read and understand them, or, alternatively, to ask for explanation. In any event, it is clearly more transparent to have a concrete though somewhat complex set of written procedures, rather than to rely on unwritten practice and individual judgement.

In these particular circumstances, it is my view that, in the absence of concrete guidelines, Thatcher's judgement of arbitrators' preference was correct (although it might perhaps have been preferable to hold off on closing and seek further guidance), and, if the committee shares this view, it is therefore not necessary to re-open the appeal, and the best course of action would be to adopt a summary motion confirming motion 2 in the appeal, or, in the case of the contrary view, one disapproving the outcome and re-opening the appeal. David Mestel(Talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from AGK

Whilst I rarely make comment on matters in cases out with those I am directly involved in, I feel compelled to make public my feelings on this matter. The underlying problems in this case are somewhat simple, and easily remediable:

  • Confusion exists over what the Committee's consensus on this matter is
  • Editors involved in the case, as well as uninvolved users, are of the opinion that the decision that has been posted differs from the consensus of the Committee as a whole, as measured as the vote held on the matter

Respectively, these issues can be addressed very simply:

  • The Committee as a whole (rather than individual arbitrators) clarify its intended decision in this matter,
  • If the intended decision differs from that which has recently been implemented, then the matter be re-opened and consensus re-gauged through the medium of a vote.

My view on whether re-opening the matter for Committee consideration remains unspecified, as I cannot say for certain what the Committee's consensus is, hence my call for a statement from it as a whole on the matter. I reiterate: a statement representing the consensus of the Arbitrators, and released on behalf of the Committee as a whole is necessary, both to clarify the circumstances once-and-for-all, and to provide a basis by which the decision of whether to reopen (and hence re-consider) the matter can be made. AGK (contact) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

The two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. Note that full cases have a motion to close phase with implementation notes, this gives the Arbitrators a chance to adjust their votes so that their intentions are correctly carried out. Open motions do not have separate votes to close and are usually enacted 24 hours after a majority is apparent. The usual method of analyzing conditional votes was applied. Several other approaches are discussed on my talk page. Thatcher 06:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' views and discussion

  • Comment: There has been detailed discussion from time to time as to how we should decide which alternative proposal passes when multiple proposals on the same topic receive the required majority. In past instances, there have been a couple of times when it was not at all clear which of two alternatives has been adopted, which have been generally been resolved when one or two arbitrators struck their support from their second choices so that the outcome was clarified. Even now, it's not clear to me whether in a case with a required majority of 7, if proposal 1.1 has 8 supports and no opposes, and alternative proposal 1.2 has 9 supports and no opposes but three of the supports are labelled "second choice," which one is enacted. And if one allows for oppose votes also, then it gets even more complicated. A month or so ago, one of our most senior Clerks wrote a note in userspace about how we might address these situations (see, User:David.Mestel/ArbComvoting), which would eliminate these ambiguities, but at the time I judged the proposal to be a bit too complicated to recommend adoption. (paragraph) With respect to these particular motions, a further complication is that the arbitrators felt compelled either to vote for my "motion 1," as a whole, or Jpgordon's alternative motion 2, also as a whole. There were differences not only in the specific sanctions that I thought could be lifted but that Jpg thought should be kept in force, but also in other nuances of the wording (my motion was a narrative with admonitions and observations; Jpg's was just a list, and some arbs might not have cared for my verbosity or my dicta). It's a commonplace in the legal and political science literature that the order of voting and whether issues are voted on jointly and singly can sometimes decide the result of the voting. This has happened in several significant U.S. Supreme Court cases (I've actually been researching a real-world article on the subject; boring details on request; compare also Arrow's theorem). The fairest thing to do here, if the committee determines that there is a problem here that ought to receive further attention in the interests of fairness or the appearance of fairness, would be to vote on the termination or continuation of each of the sanctions as to which the two motions are in disagreement, individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The statement 'support as second preference' means that I supported motion 2, but expressed a preference for motion 1 to be adopted if the two emerged with equal approval. In this case they did not have equal approval; motion 1 attracted opposition which was not present for motion 2. In that case the support for motion 2 still stands. The support for either motion was because both took the Everyking case forward by lifting some restrictions, but maintaining some in force; the reason for indicating a preference for motion 1 was because it did not expressly continue a provision which was common sense, would not normally need to be stated, and was difficult to enforce. However a preference for support is not a conditional oppose. Had I intended that meaning, I would have written it explicitly. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though the motion was closed a little faster than I might have preferred (specifically because of this fuss), the result is consistent with ArbCom's methods in the past. When alternate proposals are put forward, and both pass, the one with the most support wins. In this case, it's even simpler. Open motions, in general, are considered passed as soon as they are supported by a majority of arbitrators. Motion 2 thus could have been considered passed and immediately enacted by the clerks after this vote by Charles Matthews, which made the vote for the first motion 6-2-1 and the vote for the second motion 8-0. The clerks wisely waited, since six and five arbitrators, respectively, had not made their opinions known. In the ensuing three days, the second motion gained four more votes; the first gained two. The consensus of the committee was quite clear and unambiguous at that point; of the two alternate motions, the one with the most support carried. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In answer to Avruch: my own interpretation of the meaning of people voting to support both motions is "Either one is exactly fine with me; I'll go along with the consensus of the Committee". This is based on the assumption that all were aware the two were alternates. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was pretty clear the two motions were alternates, especially given your comment in opposing my motion that you were offering your own, and the number of references either to "second choice" or "either is fine" or whatever. The fundamental problem may still be, as I observed above, that people were given the choice of voting for your proposal or mine or both or neither, rather than parsing the specifics of each one. Of course any arbitrator could have asked for a division of the question and no one did, but even so. How can division of the question be a redlink? Where are our parliamentary law and procedure articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have it at division (vote) :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, "division (vote)" or "division of the assembly" refers to the voting process itself, in a legislature or parliamentary body. A request or motion for a "division of the question" (or "to divide the question") is a request that separate, divisible aspects or parts of a main motion be voted on separately. This is definitely going on my wiki-to-do list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the confusion here is that, as David Mestel observes, these alternative wordings were labelled "1" and "2" and not "1" and "1.1", as is commonly the practice. Clearly none of us intended that these should be anything other than alternatives. I vote that Josh goes home and practices his numbers some more :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To exonerate Josh, I will plead guilty to being the person who introduced the complex numeration scheme "1", "2" into this discussion. Per my comment above, everyone understood these motions were alternatives and I don't believe this contributed in any significant way to the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understood from Josh's comment these were alternatives. I also understood the question behind them to be - certain matters were agreed redundant (or emerged as such by consensus), but a couple of the restrictions were not clearly agreed redundant and the decision was centered around whether those should be continued at this time. This was my reading of the difference between 1 and 2, and I noted more support seemed to coalesce for the view that considered they should continue.

I am happy to see it re-considered if that would help, since a decision must not only be considered, but must visibly be seen to be clear in its decision where possible. In editorial disputes that often means "go and re-check consensus on it", as in last month's rollback RFAR decline. I'm willing to take the same view here as well. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wait a sec. Have any arbitrators expressed any concern that the result is incorrect or did not reflect our consensus? I mean, we're right here, we're paying attention to this page, it's been brought up on the mailing list, it was brought up on AN/I, and I haven't heard so much as a suggestion from anyone in ArbCom that this was not the appropriate outcome. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there were two motions, each being considered in toto, the conclusion that motion 2 superseded motion 1 is certainly defensible. However, I can't be sure whether a majority of the continuing restrictions that your motion and mine disagreed on, might have been terminated if the points had been voted on item-by-item. If Everyking were able to come back in a reasonable time and raise the individual items again (and we would re-vote now knowing that it should be done differently), that would be okay. But the last point of your motion also locks him out of making another appeal for another full year, and given the ambiguity of the result on the current appeal, that does bother me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that bothers me too. Paul August ☎ 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lesson here on "block voting" alternatives which are similar but not identical. I'm happy to do it again more "item by item", simply because although I think it was closed according to intent, it's in a way, better to revote it than to have uncertainty. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification re Macedonia case

We are currently experiencing edit wars, blanking, vandalism, ethnic ranting and various other forms of disruptive editing on a variety of different content items relating to Kosovo, including articles, talk pages, images, templates, categories etc. I'd be grateful if an arbitrator could confirm that the general sanction concerning Balkans-related articles that was passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia applies to all namespaces within the area of conflict, not just to the narrower category of "pages" (the wording used in the sanction). I presume it does but I'd like to have it on the record for clarity's sake. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

"Page" (as opposed to the narrower "article") applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kirill, although the existence of any doubt emphasizes that warnings should be given before restrictions are imposed (which is good practice anyway). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Kiril and newyorkbrad said. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above and FT2 note below. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- If no objections are received in 5 days I'd suggest a clerk closes this as "confirmed", and notes this as a standard response applicable to other cases with the same basic question. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request to clarify/expand remedy from Ferrylodge case

Link to original case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

Notification of involved users:

Statement by MastCell

In Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ferrylodge, Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) was identified as having "a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion." He was placed under indefinite sanction: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any article which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing."

Recently Ferrylodge has taken what I consider to be a very disruptive tack on Talk:Abortion. I posted diffs and details here at WP:AE, because I believe that his behavior represented a continuation of his disruptive and tendentious approach to abortion-related articles sanctioned in the ArbCom case. My filing was reviewed by User:GRBerry, who raised the very sensible issue that the sanction applies to "articles" and likely not to associated talk pages.

Talk:Abortion and associated pages are contentious under the best of circumstances. Based on the diffs and evidence in my AE report, I believe that Ferrylodge is disrupting these talk pages with tendentious, circular arguments, presumptions of bad faith, extensive wikilawyering, and the like. I'm asking, therefore, that the sanction from his case be amended to read: "Any uninvolved administrator may ban Ferrylodge from any page which relates to pregnancy or abortion, interpreted broadly, which they disrupt by inappropriate editing." This would include talk pages, WikiProjects, and the like, though presumably somewhat greater latitude would be provided on these pages than in article-space. I believe this extension is justified based on his lengthy history and ongoing behavior. MastCell Talk 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to GRBerry: No, there are no previous logged Blocks&Bans. Still, Ferrylodge has constantly been testing the limits of his sanctions. For example, here at WP:AE 2 admins (AGK and Rlevse) found his conduct disruptive - in fact, AGK banned him from Roe v. Wade - but he was let off the hook with yet another promise to reform, though his tactics had played a role in driving a very valuable contributor off Wikipedia. That pattern has repeated itself long enough. At some point, a critical mass of disruption is achieved here, and I think we're at that point. MastCell Talk 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Ferrylodge: I'm asking a very specific and straightforward question about an ArbCom case here. I'm not interested in defending myself against your attempts to distract, impugn, or muddy the waters. The reasoning behind my edits is discussed in depth on the relevant article talk pages. If you have a problem with my conduct, then please follow dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 02:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to NCdave: Since we have a long history of failing to get along well, I don't think it's constructive to follow me around and inject yourself into unrelated disputes. MastCell Talk 19:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRBerry

In interpreting the case, I noted that the committee explicitly chose the passed wording over a prior version that said "article or other page". The other difference was that the prior version was "is banned" and the passed version is "uninvolved administrator may ban". I don't know which difference the committee was focusing on.

There has been a prior request for clarification on this issue, which no committee member responded to. It is logged at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision#More clarification requested. Thatcher then said "The remedy would include any page related to abortion, including article talk pages, user talk pages (if an abortion-related discussion is carried on there), templates, policies, wikiprojects, AfDs, you name it. This has been established in past clarifications of other cases. The point of the remedy is to stop Ferrylodge from being disruptive, wherever it occurs. I personally would allow more freedom on talk pages, but there still will be an actionable level of disruption." I too am certainly going to allow more freedom in discussion venues (talk pages, XfDs, and the like).

I also note Kirill's comment earlier today on the Macedonia case: "'Page' (as opposed to the narrower 'article') applies to all namespaces. Kirill 13:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Since Thatcher (who has more WP:AE experience than I) and I are reading the tea leaves differently, clarification may well be in order even if expansion isn't.[reply]

There is currently nothing logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Log of blocks and bans. GRBerry 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on the more complete clarification response in the Macedonia case above, the current report was closed out without action. I take no position on whether expansion is in order. GRBerry 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferrylodge

I’ve responded to Mastcell at the Arbitration Enforcement proceeding that he initiated, and at the pertinent article talk page.

I hope that any further decision or clarification by ArbCom in this matter will be prospective only (which may be Mastcell’s intent anyway). I also hope that my comments at the pertinent talk page will not be viewed in isolation, but rather ArbCom should be free to review the behavior of all involved people, including "trusted members of the community."

Mastcell does not object to any article edit that I made. He objects to my talk page comments. And Mastcell is not denying that those comments followed up on a false statement that he had inserted into the article text, with an accompanying footnote in which Mastcell cited a POV newspaper editorial that did not even support the false statement that he was inserting into the article text. As far as I know, Mastcell does not deny any of this, but rather he deems all of this context irrelevant. It is very relevant. Unlike Mastcell, I did not disrupt the article text at all, and no one accuses me of having done so.

At the corresponding article talk page, Mastcell made numerous false allegations and personal attacks against me. He falsely accused me of “quote-mining a primary source” and of using “ a series of quotes from primary sources to advance your opinion” and “massag[ing] the primary sources” and “violat[ing] WP:SYN to mine quotes from a primary source” and trying to “set aside WP:NOR.”

I respectfully submit to ArbCom that all of these wiki-lawyering accusations by Mastcell were blatantly false. I do not see how ArbCom could agree to Mastcell’s present request without examining whether those accusations by Mastcell were indeed blatantly false.

It is tendentious for an Admin to make a stream of false accusations at an article talk page, while also inserting false material and POV footnotes into the article text. You may disregard these assertions of mine because Mastcell is a “trusted member of the community.” However, I urge you to please look at the facts. The discussion at the article talk page became heated, and Mastcell was as much a part of the heat as myself, if not more so. I was responding to irresponsible edits by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) in the article text, and responding to irresponsible accusations against me by Mastcell (and one other editor in particular) at the article talk page. I have tried my best to avoid causing what even the most biased person might consider disruption of any article text covered by the Arbcom decision, and no one accuses me of having done so.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Mastcell: The title of the request you made here at this page says that you are interested in "expanding" the remedy in my case. You're requesting that the language of the remedy be amended, and you've supplied ArbCom with more expansive language for them to adopt. So please don't pretend that you are merely asking a "specific and straightforward question" about the meaning of a previous remedy. You are seeking an amended and expanded remedy, and you are relying on a long list of "diffs and details." However, when I mention details that are not on your long list, you now accuse me of trying to play, distract, impugn, and muddy the waters. This is the kind of counterproductive wikilawyering that I referred to in my statement above, and I'm asking you politely to please ease up.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A few minutes ago, Mastcell made this reversion. I am totally flabbergasted. I do not understand it, see no justification for it, and feel compelled to mention it here. Please judge for yourselves.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Strider12: While I appreciate Strider12's kind words, I do want to set the record straight a little bit. As I have explained,[11] I have not said that the secondary sources in question (Science, New York Times, New Scientist, or Washington Monthly) are "unreliable" or "conflicted with the transcript". I have simply claimed that a quote from the hearing transcript will provide MORE info than is provided in those publications. I still believe that to be true, and still believe (as does Strider12) that the quote from the hearing transcript should clearly not have been removed from this Wikipedia article,[12] because the quote provides further notable and neutral info, because it narrowly addresses the precise matter discussed by the secondary sources, because it is available for free at a reliable online source, and because it fully complies with Wikipedia rules regarding use of primary sources.[13] Nor do I believe that it involves original research, or synthesis, or quote-mining, or POV, or any of the other nasty things that have been attributed to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zsero

Regardless of whether this specific decision was meant to include talk pages, having looked at the edits to which Mastcell objects, I see nothing disruptive in them. Now I haven't been at all involved in the history of that page, so I don't know how it might seem to someone who is involved, but the essence of Mastcell's complaint seems to be that in making a perfectly valid edit, Ferrylodge cynically assumed that someone would revert it, and got his response in first, so to speak. Mastcell seems to be claiming that this lack of AGF was inherently disruptive, and that Ferrylodge was under an obligation to pretend that he expected his edit to be accepted in good grace, simply because it was true, and only to respond once it was in fact reverted. The fact that his prediction seems to have been fulfilled would seem to me to vindicate him. And in light of his past treatment, especially the lynch mob back in September (my disgust at how he was treated caused me to withdraw from WP for several months), I think he's entitled to anticipate opposition to anything he does on that page, however valid, and to defend his edits as if they had already been challenged. At least that's how it appears to this utterly uninvolved editor (I only knew about this action because I had Ferrylodge's talk page on my watch list from when I made an edit to it way back when). -- Zsero (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NCdave

Sorry for the late participation; I just noticed this.

Like Zsero, I also can see no evidence at all of disruptive editing by Ferrylodge. I went to Ferrylodge's contribs, and read more of his contributions for myself. I did not read them all -- he's been a very prolific contributor for several years, on many topics. But what I found was consistently careful, well-written, well-sourced information from a thoughtful and careful contributor who obviously knows what he's talking about. Ferrylodge has diligently sought to make constructive contributions, in the face of tendentious POV-pushing by MastCell, IronAngelAlice, and a few others.

Note that MastCell's ally, IronAngelAlice, is a one-topic editor who has a history of abusive behavior using multiple accounts. Her previous ID was permanently blocked for it, and this one was blocked for a week, but she's at it again.

MastCell is also trying to get another excellent contributor, Strider12, banned. Strider12 and Ferrylodge are the two editors who have made the most constructive, well-sourced contributions to the abortion-related articles. I am truly appalled. NCdave (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strider12

I'm hesitant to even comment as I'm afraid my "taking sides" will be used by MastCell to further her attacks on me. But, here I go...

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know any of the history of Ferrylodge or why s/he was banned. As I saw it, Ferrylodge did nothing except point out that the cited sources (from pro-choice leaning publications) conflicted with the transcript and invited others to comment and edit. But apparantly knowing Ferrylodge was under a ban, MastCell was quick to start alleging that he was being disruptive.

I can also say that I had asked on several occasions on the abortion mental health talk page what the full context of the Koop "miniscule" qoute was because it was out of sync with all the other published statements he had made. No one provided the full statement and question until Ferrylodge provided it. Therefore, I consider it a contribution.

But I was also unsurprised by MastCell's wikilawyering to minimize the significance of this proof that the phrase was actually used by Congressman Weiss and misattributed to Koop. In this case Ferrylodge was demonstrating from a primary source (congressional transcripts) that the secondary sources relied upon by MastCell were not reliable regarding this particular fact.

In many similar cases, when I have supplied material from reliable secondary sources, including multiple peer reviewed studies of the highest quality, MastCell and/or others encouraged by MastCell have deleted them with no justification other than that the findings and opinions of experts who disagree with their small set of preferred sources should not be included without their consent..."consensus"...which is never to be given. In my view, this unrelenting pattern of deleting reliable sources is a clear violation of the ArbCom ruling that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption 1. In my view, it is MastCell and his/her cohorts whose deletes s/he defends, who is disruptively deleting material from this article.

It has been my experience that MastCell has a long history of trying to suppress my contributions regarding abortion and mental health, and most of this time there have been no abortion critics participating in the conversation except myself. My take on this complaint is that MastCell is upset that Ferrylodge came in with evidence that supported my concerns and that Ferrylodge appears to be a threat to his/her attempts to portray Srider12 as always wrong.

Fundamentally, this argument is not about editors or contributions, it is about the most contentious issue of the day, abortion, and the belief of some editors that any fact or source that does not contribute to the whitewash of the abortion/mental health effects is suspect and should be dismissed, minimized, or obstructed with demands for "consensus".--Strider12 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

  • By convention and long practice, the term "articles" in Arbitration cases should be read as "pages" meaning article, talk, wikiproject, template, and any other page. I happen to be otherwise occupied and taking a break from WP:AE for a while, but I would have no problem applying and enforcing the ban you propose. Thatcher 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you notice that Kirill said the opposite this morning in a different request for clarification? (Diff in my statement.) GRBerry 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can probably find diffs that say the opposite, from various Arbitrators over the last 18 months. I can deal with either a broad interpretation or a narrow one, but having both is pretty annoying. If there were two alternative proposals for voting that differentiated between page and article that would be definitive, but I rather suspect it is due to imprecise drafting of the proposed decisions. I guess we either need a vote on this case or a general clarification of Arbitration policy. As far as I am concerned, narrowly limiting probation to articles invites just this sort of problem. Thatcher 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • References to "any article" are generally meant to include talkpages. I will try to make sure that any ambiguity on this score is avoided in future decisions. Not commenting on the other issues as yet. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, the term "articles" in a restriction has been ambiguously used to mean both mainspace article pages, and "any pages". In general therefore (and since disruption on a mainspace page can often move to disruption on a talk page or other related project page), the Committee is willing to look at replacing the term "any article" by "any page" in a ruling where this may have been the intent, or where it may be a better choice as an extension and clarification. It would usually be reasonable to check first the original evidence to see what type of conduct existed at the time, and whether it was likely to be the then-Arbitrators' intention that a ruling apply to only mainspace. But this is only one factor. Even if that was the decision then, it is open to amendment now. Cases only come to Arbitration if serious, and often therefore rulings have a certain degree of "end of dispute" intention to them. I haven't yet read the original case so this is basic guidance only for now. Basically, "as Newyorkbrad said". FT2 (Talk | email) 19:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Request for clarification: Digwuren

Statement by Moreschi

I'm requesting clarification as regards this FoF and this remedy. I've just blocked said user, RJ CG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for edit-warring yet again. Time for the "summary bans" bit to be enforced? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that reminds me: if an arbitrator/checkuser with knowledge of the Estonian sock stable could figure out who on earth 84.50.127.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), also blocked for his part in the edit-war, actually is, this might be helpful. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Martintg

I see that Kirill is wishing to apply additional remedies from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. What's the scope? I don't think it is necessary in Estonia related articles, there has hardly been any activity, let alone disputes, with only User:RJ CG popping his head in briefly after a long break before being promptly blocked for two weeks for 3RR. As I said previously, Wikiproject Estonia has been chilled to the bone with most of the editors leaving the project, with no significant articles created or expanded, except for football it seems. I suppose if you are going to turn the screws even tighter, how about also adding:

  • The applicable scope: Eastern Europe broadly defined, or just Estonia related articles?
  • The definition of uninvolved admin for enforcement from that case as well Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Uninvolved_administrators
  • Lifting of the ban for Digwuren. Nobody from either side wanted year long bans. Given Digwuren only joined around April 2007, had not been previously subjected any other genuine dispute resolution attempts before being taken to ArbCom (obviously Irpen's opinions carry a lot of weight with ArbCom), this newbie certainly has been bitten hard. We need at least one person from Estonia who can speak the language and willing to contribute meaningfully to articles.

Thanks. Martintg (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Biophys

Unlike Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "Eastern European subjects", are not clearly defined. Does this include every Russia-related topic, like Russia-China relations or Soviet intelligence operations in the United States? If we want to follow the "Israeli-Palestinian" remedy, the "conflict area" should be clearly defined, say "Russian-Polish" or "Russian-Estonian" conflicts. Anything that is not area of conflict (e.g. articles on Russian-Turkish subjects or internal Russian affairs) do not belong there. Could you please clarify which subjects are covered?Biophys (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Vecrumba

I would like to know better what's being defined as the scope of applicability and what, if any, specific history of warnings is being proposed as moving sanctions to the "next level." My concern is that as the scope is expanded, "uninvolved" will also extend to "uninformed"--there has to be substantial awareness of editors' past histories in order to draw an objective judgement. If you just go by who accuses whom in the latest trail, it's quite possible that all that happens is a blanket conviction of the guilty and the innocent--if you come in on a fight, how do you know who started it? The notion that someone who is attacked is just going to sit and smile and assume good faith is only good for one round of edits; if an editor persists in behavior that is taken as an attack, the attacked editor(s) will respond and should not be held equally to blame for any escalation. —PētersV (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a code of etiquette. I have debated (civilly) paid propaganda pushers by sticking to sources, so I know it is possible not to escalate into conflict. What has worked is...
  • Always stick to what a source says. This is not as simple as it sounds, I've had to buy $150 sources (not even available at the library) just to prove they were being quoted correctly, literally, but being grossly misrepresented to push a patently false POV.
  • Corollary: Article content should be based on what sources say, not on what editors interpret sources to say. Editors have summarized content coming to different conclusions regarding content in characterizing reputable sources which differ from the authors' own summaries appearing within those self-same materials.
  • Corollary: Use the same terminology in the article as in reputable sources. For example, neither embellish nor dilute words such as "occupied." That "occupy" can be taken to be "accusatory" is irrelevant, if it is what the reputable source uses, that is what the Wikipedia article uses.
  • Discuss any major changes prior to making them, whether additions, modifications, or deletions. If consensus is not reached, the change is not made. If consensus is reached, then changes are implemented. Delete first, discuss later (in the area of articles where there is significant polarization of position or initial "disapprovals" are lodged by historically known antagonists) is looked upon as an act of bad faith, that is, preemptive removal of content without discussion or consensus is viewed as edit warring. —PētersV (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Relata refero

I have recently stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor, which I discovered while cleaning up Historical revisionism, and am startled by the level of hostility and accusations of bad faith that seem to be acceptable in this area, even towards those manifestly uninvolved. I would like some firm statements adjuring editors to read and follow WP:OR and WP:AGF, as well as some sense that adminstrators will be able to evaluate those who are 'involved' accurately, and that there will be some appealing of that judgment. Relata refero (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I assume that the area of "conflict" is all those articles that have as their subjects the history and current status of the relations between Russia and the former states of the USSR/Warsaw Pact. Relata refero (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd mention regarding Denial of the Holodomor that several editors including myself were reprimanded when Gatoclass made some assertions which led to a degenerating spiral we could not escape from. All participants were "put on the list" by Thatcher. I disagreed with Thatcher's conclusion regarding my personal editorial conduct, however, I still prefer that to the alternative.
  You're only coming to the discussion there on what I think is its third round. I completely agree that the general "divide" is along versions of history which echo Sovietism and versions by the countries formerly subjugated under Sovietism. I say "versions" because basic facts are often in dispute, they are not "views" or "POVs" regarding a common set of facts or circumstances. —PētersV (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be said that "stumbled across Denial of the Holodomor" consisted of Relata refero initially deleting huge sections of referenced content on February 12th from that article without first discussing the issues or obtaining consensus on the talk page. Not the best way to introduce one self to the other editors of any article, however Relata refero's edit history only goes back to October 11, 2007, so perhaps it was inexperience. Despite this, the other editors have been exceedingly patient and civil with him/her. Martintg (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean?
Yes, the article's one of the worst imaginable, and I acted on WP:BRD. About "exceedingly patient and civil"... wow. What a mess EE articles must be if someone thinks that was "exceedingly patient and civil". Strengthens the case for stringent restrictions, I'd say? Relata refero (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we can continue on the article page. It's only the "worst imaginable" partly because (I believe) you believe it is something in scope which it is not, so perhaps we can keep disparaging Q.E.D. remarks to article talk where editors would expect to find them to comment on them. :-) Was there bolding I missed? PētersV (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(cross posted with additions) Mass deletion of EE content is most typically (historically) associated with "I don't like it" edit wars, so I would ask editors to be sensitive to that and discuss prior to deletion, not delete as an act of improvement and then (appear to deign to) discuss. Because of past experiences, that sort of editorial conduct is looked upon as not acting in good faith. Generally speaking, EE article etiquette is to discuss major changes, additions, and deletions prior; to never impose what is written elsewhere in Wikipedia as a "model" or "standard" but to stick to sources, etc. —PētersV (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even unreliable ones...
We shouldn't make excuses for departures from core Wikipedia policies, but look for ways to enforce them. Relata refero (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I have read this but am recusing from commenting due to my involvement in that case. I will ask the others to look over this. --Deskana (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, comment is probably best given in the first instance by arbitrators who were active when that case was being heard. Deferring to othes to clarify the above. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "summary bans" bit predates some of the more useful methods we've developed since then; I'd prefer not to funnel everything through a bottleneck by having the Committee do everything itself, but rather to take the standard approach we've used for other conflict areas recently. See my motion below. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am recusing myself due to my prior involvement as an administrator. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed motions and voting

Motion:

The general restriction in the Digwuren case is replaced with the following:
1) Discretionary sanctions
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.
2) Appeal of discretionary sanctions
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
3) Other provisions
This shall not affect any sanctions already imposed under the old remedies. All sanctions imposed under these provisions are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

  1. I remain convinced that this is the best solution, at least until the working group develops something more useful. Kirill 13:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. This is more helpful to those who find themselves involved in editing disputes over Eastern Europe, whether as participant or administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support so as to conform the rules for discretionary sanctions in this area to the ones we have developed in more recent cases, and without prejudice to any steps we might take later based on recommendations of the working group. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Marting reminds me on my talk that some of his points from above have not been addressed. Would urge that the motion be clarified to address them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=195257530"