Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1): Waiting for statements, likely to accept.
Line 269: Line 269:
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''


=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/2) ===
=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/2) ===
*Awaiting further comments, but a read over the SPI page puts me in a rather accepting state of mind. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
*Awaiting further comments, but a read over the SPI page puts me in a rather accepting state of mind. [[User:Steve Smith|Steve Smith]] ([[User talk:Steve Smith|talk]]) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - awaiting some additional statements, but leaning to accept. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - awaiting some additional statements, but leaning to accept. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Accept''' and the parties would be advised to look at the Scientology case for the type of findings and remedies I would expect to see out of this case. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


== Proofreader77 blocks ==
== Proofreader77 blocks ==

Revision as of 21:19, 15 February 2010

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
ChildofMidnight   15 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
Transcendental Meditation movement   15 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
Proofreader77 blocks   15 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
Asgardian   13 February 2010 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction none none 29 May 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


ChildofMidnight

Initiated by Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter at 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diff. 1
  • Diff. 2
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I wish to bring to the attention of the Arbitration Committee the conduct of ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as I believe we have issues which need the involvement of the committee. ChildofMidnight injects himself into just about every single high drama discussion on Wikipedia. Instead of helping to resolve the dispute, he flings personal attack and cries of admin abuse left right and centre. His recent RfC documents this quite well with a long list of unsourced accusations against other editors and general defamation of other contributors. The RfC showed extremely strong support towards the filer with a large number of contributors helping to certify the RfC and few people commenting in support of ChildofMidnight - this shows that his behaviour is viewed as unacceptable by a large proportion of the community. Since his RfC, he has continued his battleground mentality in the global warming topic (and that is clearly one which needs calm minds rather than a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality). This has led to a long thread currently on the administrators' noticeboard (see here for the discussion) which was started because ChildofMidnight was blocked. Whilst the block for a specific incident was widely viewed as poor and he was swiftly unblocked, the long thread that has ensued shows that ChildofMidnight has continued to display his problematic behaviour despite his recent RfC.

It should be pointed out that ChildofMidnight was subjected to two remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles - He was topic banned from Obama articles and admonished and restriced. Putting this together with his problematic conduct in the global warming field, this is clearly an editor who is disruptive in a number of high drama areas and I believe the Arbitration Committee are the best people to look over his conduct and decide on appropriate remedies. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Accept. Steve Smith (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Planning on accepting, but do not like to formally accept a case until both sides have a chance to make a statement. SirFozzie (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Meditation movement

Initiated by MuZemike at 19:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Involved administrators
Involved non-administrators
Involved IPs and IP ranges
209.152.112.0/21
69.18.0.0/18
63.162.80.0/23
76.76.224.0/20


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

Statement by MuZemike

Further information: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive

After communicating on-wiki and with a couple of editors privately about this quickly-escalating issue regarding articles related to the Transcendental Meditation movement (including some BLPs that have been reported in the past to the BLP noticeboard). I see many parallels with the Scientology ArbCom case (WP:ARBSCI) in which I think it's now time for the Committee to help sort out. According to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors/Archive and the various checks that were run during the course of this SPI case and before, there is also some private matters and evidence by a few editors in which I believe the Committee will have to look at and sort out. In my capacity, I have been involved in giving advice as to what should be done here. I recommended that we go through with the SPI to see if it would have been possible for the community to handle this without resorting to Arbitration. After seeing the latest CheckUser results and now fully realizing the complexity of this situation, I do not think that will be possible, and I believe the Committee will need to step in and help out here. After a very lengthy SPI case which has gone on for over two weeks, it is of my opinion that any single administrator cannot and should not sort this out alone.

In a nutshell, this is about a group of editors involved with articles regarding the Transcedental Meditation movement (TM). Many of these editors and IP ranges are from Fairfield, Iowa and Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa, which is home to the Maharishi University of Management, who runs the TM movement. As said in the SPI case and as with the Scientology case, many of the editors seem to be single-purpose (see proposal 10.1 in the ARBSCI case) and likely meatpuppetry (see proposals 11 through 14 in the same ARBSCI case) with the possibility of some sock puppetry going on.

I have listed all users and IPs (including ranges) involved in the SPI case as well as all those who participated in the SPI case, including those CheckUsers involved in running the various checks. –MuZemike 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

The Transcendental Meditation movement is often considered a new religious movement, has been called a cult, and has been accused of promoting fringe theories and pseudoscience, including dubious medical treatments. It is an international movement with real estate valued at over $3.5 billion.

The TM editors have engaged in POV pushing, tag team editing, tendentious editing, and have bitten newcomers and driven away even established editors. Their COI issues have been raised repeatedly, but they have rebuffed previous complaints.

While many accounts have been found to be using the same IP range, nine accounts have been significantly involved in TM articles recently. (Note: there have also been other accounts tied to the movement that edited the articles heavily in the past but are now inactive: Nima Baghaei, Lumiere/-Lumière/Étincelle, Peterklutz/85.30.186.206, Maharishi International Publications Department/212.178.127.50, Sparaig)

  • Bigweeboy
  • ChemistryProf
  • Haworth777
  • Hickorybark
  • Keithbob
  • Littleolive oil
  • Luke Warmwater101
  • Roseapple
  • TimidGuy (sometimes editing logged-out as 76.76)

These nine accounts have dominated the TM-related articles.

Article Total edits By TM editors Percent
John Hagelin 1141 619 54%
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 2960 826 28%
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic University 84 74 88%
Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment 195 157 81%
Maharishi Sthapatya Veda 227 160 70%
Maharishi University of Management 1046 575 55%
Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health 1047 661 63%
Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa 287 104 36%
Maharishi Vidya Mandir Schools 138 122 88%
TM-Sidhi program 1279 770 60%
Transcendental Meditation 6639 2579 39%

A leaked document posted on an "anti-TM" blog describes a plan to coordinate responses by TM insiders to blog threads that concern TM.[49] It refers to the existence of "team captains" who can coordinate a team response, including handing off issues from one person to another in cases of disputes. It seems likely that, at a minimum, the same coordination is occuring regarding Wikipedia editing.

Background: In 1971 the newly formed Maharishi International University (now called Maharishi University of Management or MUM) bought the campus of a defunct college in Fairfield, Iowa. Since then that small town has become a "magnet" for TM practitioners and the adjoining settlement of Maharishi Vedic City, Iowa is the literal capital of the movement's Global Country of World Peace. Members of the movement are well-known for frequently repeating that "over 600 studies" have proven the benefits of TM and other products and techniques taught or sold by the movement.[50] Most of those studies have been conducted by the faculty of MUM. While the MUM does not actually run the movement, the movement in the U.S. is run from Fairfield/MVC by people such as Bevan Morris and John Hagelin who work at MUM.

Statement by Jmh649 (Doc James)

I agree with the above. This has been an ongoing issue of a COI / POV editing by a small group of persistent editors. Needs to be settled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by J.delanoy

I was asked privately to look at several accounts involved in this back in early January. I don't actually remember much about what I found (transferring to a new university does not have a beneficial effect on one's memory), but based on what I wrote, I had decided that it was too complicated for me to deal with. I can forward my half of the conversation to arbcom-l if desired. J.delanoygabsadds 20:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fladrif

I concur that this is a matter that will take ArbCom to deal with. The Scientology ArbCom decision is directly on point and controlling precedent for this situation. Prior attempts at informal dispute resolution have been numerous and utterly fruitless. Direct instructions from Admins to COI Editors that they not edit the TM-related articles at multiple WP:COIN discussions are openly and defiantly ignored. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppery is rampant, as noted above. More to come, I expect. Fladrif (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jpgordon

This does seem to me as exactly analogous to the Scientology cases. I've not analyzed any behavioral evidence, but the technical evidence I have seen warrants ArbCom's attention. I recommend accepting the case. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

As filing party on the two most recent Scientology arbitrations, agreeing with Will Beback's assessment. Unlike the recent Chabad Movement case which was a content dispute with no tangible evidence of conflict of interest, this time technical evidence links a large number of accounts to a very narrow set of IP addresses.

The fact that these happen to be small religious/spiritual movements is relevant only to the extent that a firm distinction deserves to be expressed: adherence to a belief system does not in itself generate conflict of interest. Individual adherents of belief systems--old or new, large or small--are all welcome to edit Wikipedia and need not fear sanction when they edit in accordance with policies.

It does, however, generate a conflict of interest to edit from organizational computers and Internet connections. That holds equally true for spiritual organizations, manufacturing firms, political parties, etc. Whenever a large number of accounts appear to be editing with the same organizational WP:COI toward the same promotional goals, and normal community attempts to curb that behavior fail, we should respond with equivalent and appropriate firmness no matter who they are. Durova412 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Awaiting further comments, but a read over the SPI page puts me in a rather accepting state of mind. Steve Smith (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - awaiting some additional statements, but leaning to accept. Risker (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept and the parties would be advised to look at the Scientology case for the type of findings and remedies I would expect to see out of this case. SirFozzie (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proofreader77 blocks

Initiated by Hell In A Bucket (talk) at 02:41, 15 February 2010 (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 Hell in a Bucket

I first came across Proofreader77 in December on Jimbos talkpage while arguing against admin abuse and the corrupt nature of arbcom's process. He was experiencing some ownership issues there and IMO parading a large donation on Jimbos page. He was blocked for the first time on a two year account. He had two following blocks for minor disruption that boiled down to being iritating. He contested each block vigorously and has been threatening to file a Arbcom case for admin malpractice. This has resulted in two ANI discussion on an indef block with no consensus. Today his 2 day block was abruptly changed by Gwen Gale for no explained reason other then a vague disruption reply. The resulting discussion today boiled down to personal irritation with the threat to come here and actually resulted in malpractice by an admin. Either way we need this case to be resolved to end the threats of review by Arbcom or finally nail down a consensus on a editor with a 38% article mainspace edit rate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, The actions of tonites block extention was out of process and the blocking admin refused to provide resons or raqtionale for extended block other then vague disruption comment. Suggest temporary removal of mop until she is willing to discuss blocking rationale to community who entrusted her with the tools to begin with. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bigtimepeace

There's no need for an ArbCom case here, unless we want to have one about Proofreader77, their behavioral problems, and whatever they want to complain about (and I don't think we want to have that). Proofreader was blocked (uncontroversially) by Future Perfect at Sunrise for 48 hours. After some talk page comments Gwen Gale then extended that block to indefinite. It got taken to ANI to review where a number of editors supported the indefinite block (including me) and an equal number opposed it. Tanthalas39 then cited a lack of consensus explanation/rationale on the part of Gwen Gale for the original extension to indef and reduced it back to 48 hours. It's all still being discussed here though it's winding down. Gwen Gale could have provided a better rationale for extending the block but it was not abuse of tools, and Tan39 could have probably let discussion continue rather than hastily reversing the block but it was likewise not abuse since consensus seemed to be lacking. Neither deserve to go to ArbCom. Proofreader77 is still a problematic editor and we'll see what happens when the block expires, but probably the community can handle this. ArbCom should decline this request swiftly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Tanthalas39

My official statement: "For crying out loud." Tan | 39 03:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-uninvolved Coldplay Expert

I only asked for an unblock at the ANI. Per Tan, "For crying out loud." Is this really necessary? IMHO, this is a huge waste of time.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Fut.Perf.

Just for background, I'll document the reasons that led to my 48hrs block of Proofreader which preceded Gwen's indef. Proofreader inserted himself in a thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales with an unprovoked attack personally disparaging another user, Rodhullandemu, for no apparent reason [56]. When Rod – apparently for personal reasons of real-life stress – reacted seriously upset, Proofreader kept taunting and baiting him [57]. His decision to then report Rod's (admittedly exaggerated) reaction to ANI, in this context, was another act of provocation. It was suggested to him that instead of dragging Rod to ANI he had better apologise to him [58][59]; instead he kept stirring things up [60]. I warned him to keep out of the matter [61] and when he still persisted in re-posting "evidence" diffs about Rodhullandemu [62], I blocked him for "trolling and harassment".

I stand by the reasons for this 48-hour block. I didn't take a position on Gwen's indef-block. However, reviewing Proofreader's prior contributions, it appears to me that the amount of drama caused by his tendentious editing on one set of articles (the Roman Polanski dispute), together with repeated episodes of fortuitous drama-stirring just for the sake of it, and his bizarre communicative habits, is hardly outweighed by any non-trivial positive content contributions. He apparently wants an Arbcom case, so unless the community decides on a permanent sanction against him before that, it's likely that he will cause one, one way or other, now or later. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

ArbCom should reject this case. Proofreader77 has been gaming the system, being disruptive in his own very idiosyncratic way, and adding very little of value to the encyclopedia. Yesterday he was deliberately WP:BAITing Roddhullandemu, even when he was warned by FPAS and others to desist. This is unfortunately typical of the way he edits. His ongoing preparation for a future ArbCom case seems to be what he considers WP to be about - disruption as a form of performance art. The best thing is that this performance takes place off-wiki after the community decides it is not beneficial to the writing of an encyclopedia. It does appear that various users are amused by Proofreader77's antics and might try to argue that his behaviour is admissible. In that case, it might be necessary for ArbCom to step in. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Casliber

For the record, I have sent an email with some issues about this which are not appropriate to be discussed openly. I ask the arbitration committee to review and consider this in thinking of a way forward from here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Again, if the committee takes up this case, I would ask that it consider fully the rationales for "indefinite blocks" which I consider a Sir Walter Raleigh solution as used far too often. This committee has the ability to set forth specific rules and guidelines for use of such acts. Collect (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved SarekOfVulcan

Whether or not the case is accepted, Proofreader77 should be strongly discouraged from posting "documentation for Arbcom" sections in discussions, as here. While this is technically not a WP:NLT violation, as pointed out in the AN/I thread, it has a similarly intimidating effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gwen Gale

A month and a half ago I lifted the restrictions put forth in Proofreader77's RfC because they weren't bringing the hoped-for outcome. In the aftermath he was blocked four times by four admins (me among them).

As I said in the ANI thread, one only has to click by happenstance on any 20 edits made by Proofreader77 over the last two months to quickly understand the depth and breadth of his disruption, which among other things seems meant to draw a very wide audience. Most of his article contributions in this time have been simple reverts or undo edits, which at least seem meant only as token contributions to the project, as cover for what he's truly doing. Why it has all gotten so much worse over the last few months, I don't know.

Proofreader77's posts following the latest block were both wikilawyerish and taunting, carrying no hint his disruption would stop when the block was up. In lengthening the block to indefinite I was hoping to save lots of volunteer editors a lot of time and meanwhile, allow a window through which we could come to a more thorough understanding of why Proofreader77 has been doing this and what might be done to nudge him towards building an encyclopedia. In saying this I keep in mind, it could be that from Proofreader77's outlook, what so many editors take as wanton disruption is his way of building an encyclopedia towards his own notion of what it should be and if so, I thought lengthening the block to indefinite might at last be a means of stopping the disruption and getting to the pith of what he wants.

I don't think the reversal of my action had consensus in the ANI thread, but I believe the reversal was done in good faith by an admin who didn't agree with me on how to handle the root problem and my only worry as the thread wound down was, this disruption will most likely carry on unabated. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Scieberking

In my honest opinion, an unexplained and abrupt indefinite block by any administrator is severely harsh, and evidently violates the blocking policy. Scieberking (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information by Pohta ce-am pohtit

Proofreader77 seems to indicate that he wants to post a message here once his block expires, although he does not exclude sending an email to ArbCom instead. He also says he want the indef block on him reinstated?! 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cube lurker

Arbcom may not take this case, yet there is some disturbing behaviour here. Blocking is a serious matter, and indef blocking even more so. When an admin has been asked why they made a block, they should be able to clearly answer. Refusing to clearly answer falls short of an admins responsibility to communicate reasons for their actions. This may fall short of a case, but there is reason for concern here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Comment: Awaiting further statements, and noting that Proofreader remains blocked for some forty hours. Steve Smith (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Will await a statement from Proofreader77 before determining whether or not to accept, given that he has indicated he is preparing a case to be brought here; however, I'm not seeing anything that is outside of the community's scope so far. Risker (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Although events could have moved more slowly, I see no evidence of misconduct by any administrator. (We continue to have some ambiguities about what degree of consensus is warranted before one either blocks or unblocks, which I wrote about sometime last year in a talkpage comment that I will try to track down, but that does not require our opening a case on the matter.) The current status is that Proofreader77 is serving a 48-hour block, which I do not feel called upon to review. Once the block expires, Proofreader77 can file a new case if he has reason to do so; I have seen little evidence thus far that he has a meritorious claim, so I am not encouraging him to file a case; but I haven't comprehensively reviewed his allegations and will of course keep an open mind until he presents them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline While, like Brad, I do have concerns about heat of the moment issues spiraling out of control, I don't see any need for ArbCom review here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardian

Initiated by Nightscream (talk) at 21:36, 13 February 2010 (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 Nightscream

Over the past few years, many members of the community have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the issue of User:Asgardian's serial violations of WP:OWN, WP:WAR, WP:ES, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDSUM, WP:SOCK, WP:POINT, and WP:CIVIL, and his use of WP:GAME-type behavior when said community attempts to address these offenses. His refusal to respond in an honest or civil manner during these attempts at resolution, most recently during his RfC, make it clear that the only way to prevent future abuse by him is to ban him permanently from Wikipedia. While I would not be averse to allowing him to return in say, a year, I would only favor this if he openly discusses the inappropriate nature of the behavior I have described here, directly answer questions about it, and agree to abandon that behavior, sincerely, and without further evasion. Barring this, he should be permanently blocked from editing. Evidence of his policy violations, both during edit disputes, and when his behavior is called into question, is copious, and will be furnished by me (and presumably others) when the case is opened.

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I am just idly asking, but is there any reason why this cannot be handled by an uninvolved administrator issuing an indefinite block if they feel that is appropriate, and defending it at ANI if necessary? NW (Talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Master&Expert

I was about to ask the same thing as NuclearWarfare above. I think if the community has lost patience with Aagardian, it may be worth discussing over at one of the noticeboards. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here because when I asked User:Newyorkbrad about banning, he informed me that the two paths that could be utilized for banning would be to either start a discussion at AN/I, or bring an arbitration case. Since Asgardian has already been the focus of a number of AN/I threads (a couple of which I participated in), which only served to perpetuate the problem, much as the recent RfC, it seemed reasonable to take the matter here. I have prepared a detailed summary of the problem, and its focuses not only on the precipitating policy violations, but also the behavior Asgardian exhibits when his edits or his behavior is disputed, including the counterclaims that I (correctly) anticipated Asgardian would employ, such as the ad hominem "grudge" claim, the non sequiturs about Red Hulk, the Beyonce Knowles matter, the inconsistency in his statements, his reliance on one outsider editor who seemed to indicate that he didn't read the RfC in depth, while dismissing the 18 long-tenured editors who wrote or endorsed summaries against him (8 of which are administrators), etc.
I was prepared to post it here before I saw that the instructions indicate that this is not the place to prove the case, but to merely summarize it succinctly, and that the evidence in question is to be presented after the case is opened, which I intend to do. If I have not adequately followed the instructions or procedures for situations like this, or provided enough information for a decision on your part, I would be more than willing to address any other clarifications or suggestions that anyone has. Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the most recent block applied to Asgardian by neutral admin Xavexgoem (and retracted by said admin) was as a result of an AN/I thread. I agree with Nightscream that AN/I is not likely to solve this, and has been tried more than once before. I need to get my thoughts together before I go into detail. BOZ (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Asgardian

I'll respond here with an insert as I wasn't sure where to post.

I have to say that I find this development baffling and unfortunate. Nightscream would seem to have issue with the fact that the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian didn't go the way he intended. In fact, I can simply address his very general and non-specific points raised above by asking all to refer to the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian, where I was also supported by one editor in particular (Scott Free, who noted that there was an element of "gangpiling" ([63]). The RFC also shows examples of some of the issues I have had to deal with in regards to some of the more inexperienced editors.

Further to this, Nightscream persisted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian, but the focus has become about him and his conduct, which seems to be a driving desire to see myself somehow "punished". This is highlighted here [64], where WhatamIdoing states

"Nightscream, I'm finding that your comment above:

You don't remove them against policy, find a source months later, and then say it "resolves" the issue. It may resolve the the need for sources, but that does not mean that it resolves the issue of an editor violating policy months prior...

is fairly telling.
First, anything that's well and truly resolved in the mainspace really is entirely resolved as far as building the encyclopedia is concerned (i.e., why we're all here, right?). Apologies and self-abasement and promises to do better and so forth about the imperfect process don't change either a jot or a tittle in the mainspace.
It seems to me that if you (and others) didn't have such a fraught history with Asgardian, then this incident really would have been "resolved" as soon as a source was produced. The fact that you want something more to be done, while acknowledging that there is nothing else to be done in the mainspace on that point, indicates to me the depth of the interpersonal dysfunction."

This whole section ([65]) seems to have become about trying to educate Nightscream (who is an administrator) about Wikipedia. As I noted in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian, I don't understand the intensity of Nightscream's claims given that we have not edited together on the same article - Red Hulk - for months. What makes this even more bizarre is that Nightscream actually supported me just days ago on an edit at Beyonce Knowles ([66]); supported me on the relevant Talk Page ([67]) and then after I thanked him ([68]) for the support acknowledged the thanks: [69]. This then begs the question, why is this request being introduced?

On an aside the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae was from 2007, and a great deal has changed this then, which I indicated at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian.

I've made peace with many of the editors I have disagreed with in the past (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian), and am now collaborating with many of them on other issues (eg.[70]). I am also even now trying to compromise with a fairly inexperienced editor (who was also recently banned for attempting blind reversions with a sockpuppet on my edits): [71]; [72] as opposed to just edit warring.

To conclude, I feel a request for a "permanent side-wide ban" is completely unnecessary; extreme and also (sadly) smacks of a grudge. I am also concerned about the fact that Nightscream has unilaterally chosen to speak for Tenebrae and BOZ - listed above - without actually waiting to see if they wish to participate.

I bear Nightscream no ill will and would just like to see this resolved. I enjoy editing, and have made many, many productive edits in recent years (a very recent example being the many hours I've put in here [73], as the sources can only be of benefit).

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Unfortunately, Nightscream's assertion that there are "18 long-tenured editors who wrote or endorsed summaries against him (8 of which are administrators)" actually doesn't paint the whole picture. Many of these editors are very inexperienced and/or have been cautioned or blocked and one had admitted that his level of experience in these matters is limited (and that's nothing I hold against said person, who has been very fair and is simply trying to keep the peace). I touch on this at the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Asgardian. Almost everything presented is in regards to the distant past, and in recent times there has only been any real conflict with two inexperienced editors, whose conduct I also touched on. I've also tried to reach out to these two editors, and hopefully reach some middle ground.

I am still, however, curious as to why there is a sudden request for a "permanent ban" - or any kind of sanction for that matter - given I have been making every effort to work with others (numerous examples) and better articles (numerous articles). It goes back to my point about there being no "smoking gun", although there still being an insistence (see my earlier comments with the link) for something to be done. I am also concerned about what Scott Free called "gangpiling" ([74]) over perceived - and not necessarily actual - issues. This is the third attempt for a sanction against myself, and it is becoming rather stressful. I'm happy to provide information to independent parties, or alternatively, simply do so if this is adjourned to the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Asgardian which has not closed.

  • Something I should also add is something like 90% of the time my edits are unchallenged. I now avoid edit warring as much as is possible, and actively seek solutions to issues.

For your consideration Asgardian (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly-involved statement by Daedalus969

I don't think an arbcom case is necessary. All we need is the thread I created at ANI for the topic ban and editing restrictions.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: couldn't this be handled at AN/I?  Roger Davies talk 07:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Awaiting further statements, and any clear explanation for why this can't be dealt with at ANI will be welcome. However, I'm leery of rejecting cases by in effect telling the community to ban somebody. I also changed the heading of this case to something more neutral. Steve Smith (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not general ArbCom policy to enact "permanent" bans as a result of Arbitration cases, other then under special circumstances. The usual maximum remedy enacted is a one year site ban. If a permanent ban is desired, AN/I may be better. Looking at the information, however, I would tenatively lean towards accepting the case should it be pushed forward. SirFozzie (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=344276850"