Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:55, 10 May 2009

Requests for arbitration

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

{Insert the case name}

Initiated by {Yourusername} {timestamp}}

Involved parties

yourusername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Diff. 1
Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Link 1
Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

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

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

Mattisse

Initiated by Karanacs (talk) at 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Karanacs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Mattisse notified and declines to participate Mattisse later made a statement - see below
ANI thread

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mattisse_3

Statement by Karanacs

I'm filing this as a response to the latest filing about Mattisse's activity. Although Mattisse can be an excellent content contributor and article reviewer (at GAN and FAC), her behavior at times is disruptive. At her most recent RfC (January), she was asked to refrain from making allegations of bad faith, to stop misrepresenting other editors' comments, to stop disrupting processes such as DYK, GAN, FAC, FAR, RfA, to stop making allegations of an FAC, FAR or other cabal that is out to get her, and to stop making personal attacks. Since then, she has been accused of many of these same behaviors at FAR (March) and at GAR (see ANI thread above), and she is still assuming bad faith [1] and compiling lists of people who she thinks are against her [2]. Patient engagement with the user is not getting anywhere in helping Mattisse to even understand that there could be a problem with her behavior, and I'm unsure what to do next to help Mattisse continue to make quality contributions without the lapses into disruption.

At this time, I'm not adding anyone else as a party, as this is more to address a pattern of behavior rather than a specific incident. Anyone who feels sufficiently involved is welcome to add to the list.

Response to Carcharoth

From my observances of Mattisse, it appears that she believes that multiple editors are out to drive her away from Wikipedia. It may be wise to expand the party list to include those editors listed in her most recent Plague/Torment list to see if there is any basis for that impression. That list of editors includes (besides me)

long-term interactions with User:Moni3, User:Jennavecia, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:Casliber, User:Fainites, User:Awadewit, User:Maralia, User:Giano II, User:Tex, User:Bishonen, User:Risker, User:Lar, and User:SandyGeorgia.
more short-term interactions with User:Cirt, User:FloNight, User:Durova

I certainly don't want to go on a witch hunt, but to be fair Mattisse's concerns should probably be investigated as well. Karanacs (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mattisse

It is clear that there are many editors who wish to hurt me. They repeatedly bring up diffs that go back to 2006 when I started.

All I can offer is the wish that the Arbitration Committee actually look at the evidence that these editors have presented in the three RFC's that have been filed against me as proof that I am unfit for this project. I am not good at getting diffs and I cannot defend myself. I am very tired from the repeated accusations going back to 20 days after my first edit. The years have worn me down.

As well as looking at the evidence presented against me in the three RFCs, I wish that the Arbitration Committee would also look at my contributions to this project and weigh whether I am a net benefit or not. I cannot continue here if the past cannot be put away somehow. The constant accusations over three years have eroded my faith in my ability to carry on here. I am so very tired.

In every attempt I have made to communicate my side of the situation, I have made things worse. My good intentions end up being my enemy and give more evidence to those who wish to harm me. I admit that my behavior has deteriorated, as I truly am tired. I am intensely disliked by a frightening number of people here at Wikipedia, even those I have never heard of, and although I have worked hard for the project, I realize that it does not matter in the end and does not weigh in my favor. Rather, my passion and belief in the project have been my downfall. Therefore, whatever is decided is decided on the basis of the evidence in the three RFCs. I have nothing more in my defense but my work for the encyclopedia. If the evidence in those three RFCs weights against me, then I will accept a permanent ban as justice for the damage I have caused Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I will try to contribute to the encyclopedia as unobtrusively as possible, since I have received requests to continue. Hopefully, that is OK. Thank you. Regards, ~ —Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by Mattisse: I fully acknowledge that some of my actions have been out of line, such as repeating another editor's words by bolding them, being POINTY, and other ill-considered moves. I truly apologize for these behaviors and the hurt and pain they have caused others. I am aware that I often do not communicate well under fear and stress. I am deeply afraid of the Arbitration process. Knowing the extent of my fear and how much this incapacitates me and prevents me from constructive participation, I am requesting that the Arbitration Committee allow another to speak for me. John Carter has offered to do so. I am praying that this is acceptable. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Uninvolved) statement by Ceranthor

As ~~Moni~~ Karanacs (duh) noted above, there was an ANI thread, currently still open, about Mattisse's behavior. The current verdict seems to be absolutely nothing. The majority of the discussion has just been argument between the two parties, therefore I am not really sure how this started or how we will fix it. Then again, that's up to the Arbitrators. Ceranthor 20:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Uninvolved) statement by Synergy

Mattisse's contributions to these areas are duly noted, yet this cannot continue. I urge the committee to accept this case and to settle the matter before it continues to escalate. Synergy 20:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A block should not have been done by Tznkai. I think this was out of line and should have been handled by an uninvolved admin. Synergy 22:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by sort of involved Jennavecia

I was involved in the most recent incident and one in January. I am also listed as a plague on Mattisse's talk page. Thus, I also urge the committee to accept this case. Mattisse has done a great deal of work that has improved the project significantly. Unfortunately, she has a nasty habit of taking things way over the top, to the point that the comments she makes seem out of touch with reality. Ceranthor is apparently not up to speed on the history here, so I would ask that the committee look at the pattern, which is one that dates far back, and not focus on any one incident. The latest serves only as a recent example of a problem that Mattisse has become known for. لenna vecia 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Either way

I, too, would like to see something done in regards to Mattisse since I appear on one of her apparent evidence "hit lists" here. either way (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by more involved Casliber

The Mattisse case may have a number of editors added who have been involved with adverse relations with her and where she has exhibited problematic conduct. These might include me (in a fairly major way), SandyGeorgia, Fainites (not sure the level), Giano (not sure how he would rate it), Cirt, ~~Awadewit and Risker~~ (actually could leave off the last two as minor and would make the scope of this unwieldy). All are similar with her becoming into conflict on some matter and then proceeding to make life difficult, at times with a level of paranoia and misintepretation which makes ongoing dialogue very difficult. I am not sure whether listing parties as involved is helpful to clarify the scope of her interpersonal problems or obfuscates the overall picture. Silktork, Lingnut and Durova have attempted to mediate, and then other old issues secondary have become entangled (eg Cirt and Jayen scientology). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

I entered a statement at the most recent conduct RfC and attempted to smooth the waters a few times afterward. Last night I proposed an alternative solution in order to try to resolve this on the community level. As of this writing it has 5 supports, 3 opposes, and extensive discussion. Objections range from calls for no action at all to suggestions for a topic ban. Mattisse had literally invited me to propose a sanction minutes before: "Put restrictions on me, instead of all this whinning about no restrictions on me. Restrict me from FAC. Go ahead. Just stop this endless whinning over my behavior. If I am that bad, then get rid of me."[3] The proposal was the mildest I could craft and milder than Mattisse herself had suggested, yet very shortly after it went live Mattisse raised objections against it.

Although Mattisse has offered to withdraw from the disputed processes, she has made similar pledges multiple times in the past and in all instances has broken the pledge shortly afterward. When questioned about that, she replies that her return had been requested by other persons. Her input is often very insightful and constructive. Yet it appears that this editor is also exceptionally thin skinned: prone to perceive malicious intent in normal editorial discussion.

It is possible to both sincere and mistaken in one's perceptions. Trouble arises when the misunderstanding cannot be cleared up and instead spreads to new fora. This has been occurring at important content processes (GAC, peer review, etc.) and there's a danger of it driving away other useful contributors.

The community-based proposal currently has majority support but not clear consensus. Having proposed it seems to have gotten me added to her list of perceived foes even though it was done at her own request. If the Committee does not accept a case now, it is likely that more people will undergo the exhausting experience of trying to help and eventually getting spurned for their efforts. Durova^Charge! 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Mattisse's statement above she asserts "Meanwhile, I will not be contributing to the encyclopedia until this is cleared up, one way or another." Subsequent to that pledge she has made 22 edits to a featured article candidate and supported its candidacy.[4] Durova^Charge! 22:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the above comment, in light of her clarification. Durova^Charge! 23:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Intermittantly Involved Fainites

This situation is not improving. The disruption is wearing and has a chilling effect. The misrepresentations and assumptions of bad faith percieved by editors (including Mattisse) cause huge upset and bad feeling. I needs to be looked at by the uninvolved.Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That blocking (below) is a bit sudden given it's before ArbCom surely?Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

My involvement with Mattisse has been brief, but troubling, and seems indicative of overall problems

On March 18 I reverted a message on her talk page that deceptively attributed comments out of context as if they were made on her talk page, she responded by reverting with the edit summary "revertin unwaranted interference on my talk page merely to hid e evidence regrding another editor" at which point I reverted again (removing the comments properly this time), saying "Do not post comments authored by other users as if they had made them. This is disruptive and deceptive. The use of user talk pages is a privilege associated with constructive editing. Stop immediately" While she did desist, she decided to re add the comments to her talk page archives here and here. Even assuming good faith, this seems to be at best, missing the point, and worst, sneaky behavior. Furthermore and more troubling, in keeping these notes to her self, and with the current "plague" list on her page here, Mattise has displayed a battleground mentality incompatible with Wikipedia policy, practice, and goals.

Therefore, I suggest that the committee consider the possibility of disposing this by motion, simply banning Mattisse for some period of time for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. I honestly don't know why I or another administrator hasn't done so before we got here. I have nothing for or against her personally, and I hear she's a good contributor in a number of places, but Wikipedia is not a place for airing personal grudges. If you can't stop, you belong elsewhere.

--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

I've blocked Mattisse indefinitely for treating Wikipedia as a battleground as described above. I invite the Committee to confirm, modify, or overturn, but the problematic behavior was continuing in process, so this otherwise qualified as routine administrative action.--Tznkai (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I've made my reasoning insufficiently clear. In the time since this RfAr has been opened, Mattisse has continued to add comments to her Plague/Torment thread. That behavior is clearly against behavioral policy, in addition she has insisted that she was not going to participate here. Obviously, others disagree with my actions, and I have no problem with others undoing my block if they feel that my rationale was flawed, and I am willing to do it myself in a bit if requested.--Tznkai (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And unblocked.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ottava Rima

As can be seen in a previous RfC, my opinions on the matter differ from most of the above. I am not posting to wage war, nor will I directly refute anything anyone else has stated. However, I believe that there are a lot of good people that, momentarily, are not looking at the situation in the right light. I am not Mattisse's friend, and I have been attacked by Mattisse more than most involved here, but I feel that this is inappropriate, and I feel that the ramifications of this case will be shameful enough that I do not want to even know of its existence as it unfolds. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Mattisse has never, for my knowledge, supported any of my FACs or anything that I have really been involved in. I have, more than most of those above, been in more situations that I could portray myself as the victim. However, I doubt this will put more weight behind my words for most involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lar

I'm on the plague list too. I don't know that there is much to add to what has been said before, except to comment to Tznkai in reply to "I honestly don't know why I or another administrator hasn't done so" (blocked Mattisse) "before we got here."... to me the answer is obvious, because everyone involved in this has bent over backwards to assume good faith about Mattisse. No one should be faulted for that! I think disposal by motion as Tznkai suggests, might be a way to avoid a long drawn out case and more hurt feelings. ++Lar: t/c 21:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tex

It seems things have degenerated enough for this case to be accepted. Placing a list of usernames under the heading of "Plague" on her userpage is not a very good way to encourage collaborative editing. I mentioned on the FAR talk page that I didn't know if all of her disruption should lead to a topic ban or not, but I definitely think something needs to be done now. - Tex (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wehwalt

I'm not going to take a position on this dispute, but I do think that Tznkai's action in indef blocking Mattisse was a little bit much. This matter is before this committee, it will certainly be accepted, and this committee will then act as it sees fit. I suggest that Tznkai's action is a bit premature and perhaps presumptuous (thank you, Spiro Agnew) and I suggest the committee vacate it without prejudice to its final determination.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update With that situation resolved, I think ArbComm is going to earn their big bucks on this one. What action can ArbComm possibly take that will keep Mattisse as a productive editor and eliminate the friction that unfortunately has happened? I don't think punitive or semipunitive (such as "if she does this, any uninvolved admin may ..." because that's just putting off the inevitable and I think she'd take it in the worst possible way anyway. I'm thinking that almost any outcome of this Arb will lose us Mattisse, either now or shortly thereafter, and I think that would be a blow to the project. Answers? I don't have any, I'm just a content writer who uses his tools rather rarely. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

I found the attack on Mattisse at AN/I that precipitated this RFAR shameful, opportunistic and over the top, and have probably already made my view on this more clear than would have been necessary.

Mattisse reviewed two of my articles for GA (one passed, the other did not), and I remain immensely impressed by Mattisse's professional judgment, which seemed to me in an entirely different league. I have noticed the squabbles, and I have also noticed that there is a regular group of editors who cannot refrain from adding their ha'pennyworth of criticism of Mattisse whenever there is any evidence that there might be a chance of a fight. That dynamic is unhealthy.

More generally speaking, I also question the recurrent pattern of escalating disputes and then laying them at the arbcom's doorstep, bypassing steps such as mediation. Arbcom is a hammer, and a hammer is only ever good for one thing. Subtlety, or the building of mutual trust and rapport, is beyond it. I would have thought mediation might be a much more productive idea in the present case, if any of the parties feel a need. Failing that, pay Mattisse's opinions some respect; I have met few editors indeed whose only agenda appears to be encyclopedic integrity, or who are better able to work towards it. Jayen466 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There might be merit in using moderators or facilitators on a routine basis in processes that often spark ill-feeling. This could be an offshoot of the current mediation system, and the aim would be to try to catch a few of these situations before they end up here. If anyone has any bright ideas on how this could work rather than just sound good, there is a thread on it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Facilitation_rather_than_Mediation Jayen466 23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malleus Fatuorum

I'm on Mattise's plague list as as well, or as she now calls it a "torment" list. I hadn't intended to comment, as I said to Mattisse on my talk page, but I feel I have to respond to Tznkai's indef block. I've had my fair share of problems with Mattisse, and perhaps a topic ban might now be appropriate, but I'm deeply unhappy about her block. Her recent behaviour has been no different to her long-term behaviour so far as I can see, and needs to be dealt with differently. Primarily by her recognising that fault doesn't always lie with others, and putting old grudges behind her. I'm hoping this final step in the process can be a wake-up call for Mattisse, but I don't see blocking her now as either a necessary or constructive step. --Malleus Fatuorum

Statement by SilkTork

It has frequently been assumed that I mentored Mattisse, though that was never the case. I did consider it, as Mattisse did name me as a possible mentor, but the conditions in which I felt mentoring would be successful were not available, so I declined that offer. However, I did offer Mattisse friendship and support. Not the guidance or advise of someone more experienced, but simply the sympathetic ear of a fellow editor. At a time of considerable stress for Mattisse - when she would normally lash out at others - having a friend she could talk with enabled her to put matters into perspective and not feel alienated, misunderstood and rejected. As a result she calmed down and was able to put her considerable efforts (which are acknowledged and appreciated) to good effect without distressing others. Unfortunately our discussions came to an end mainly through my own poor comments rather than Mattisse's doing, and it appears she has drifted back into a position of isolation and vulnerability.

To give a fuller background to the situation. I was an advocate for Mattisse back in the days of the AMA, when she was part of an earlier ArbCom. At that time I became swamped and exhausted by Mattisse's behaviour and resigned as her advocate. Her later criticism of my actions I found grossly unjust and hurtful, and I became very angry - much in the way that people speaking out here in this case have become hurt and angry by her behaviour. I spoke out in the recent RFC in response to Ottava Rima's subtle question about the ability of people to be impartial in relation to Mattisse because she has a way of making people respond emotionally rather than rationally. In reading through that RFC back in January, I began to notice that there was a lot of fluff and outcry for very little substance. I looked into the article at the heart of the RFC, the Major depressive disorder article, and found that Mattisse had made considerable contributions to that article. Her passion, commitment and attention to detail was quite extraordinary. So much so that it appears to have worn down other people involved. And the other people involved then reacted very badly toward Mattisse. As I read through the history of that article, I began to see Mattisse's world. And Ottava Rima's comments began to make more sense. Editing Wikipedia can be emotional and stressful - there is a warning when we click on the Edit button "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." Yet people react badly toward a well intentioned editor who wants to see improvements. And their reaction winds up the well intentioned editor so that matters start to disintegrate. We now have a call for an ArbCom on the basis of this?. Hardly a disruptive statement. Hardly merciless. Hardly vandalistic.

I had been hurt by Mattisse and had lashed out at her in the past. But when I started to look into her world, I realised the worth that was there for this project, and that with just a little bit of warmth, support and encouragement she could continue to be an asset and could grow. If there is to be an ArbCom here I hope that the solution to be found will be a warm and supportive one that the community can be proud of. A punitive solution in revenge for emotional hurt will not do any of us any good. SilkTork *^YES! 22:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moni3

I made this post at ANI today, which sums up my perceptions of what is going on. I don't know what else to say about it other than it's very sad that this has become necessary. Mattisse's posting across other users' talk pages begging them to join in the ArbCom against her [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] is a perfect example of the foot-shooting behavior that makes her claims often seem like malingering. There is no in-between or constructive criticism with Mattisse it seems. There is only with her or hate her—in her own mind; that she cannot see the efforts her fellow editors have gone to praise her contributions while gently encouraging her to drop her interpersonal conflicts is just as sad. I genuinely wish her peace because I do not think she gets it here at Wikipedia. I wouldn't wish this case on ArbCom members either. No good will come of it, but revisiting this every 3 months is just as futile. --Moni3 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mike Christie

I've had no direct involvement with Mattisse that I can recall, though we have both commented at the current debate at Talk:The Age of Reason. Her behaviour there seems unacceptable to me; and among the comments of hers I've seen elsewhere (I think almost all at FAC) there are more examples that have led me to hope she never comments on one of my FACs. I've hoped to avoid ever having to interact with her. She may be an asset to the encyclopedia in other ways but I would like to see a definite end to this behaviour, via blocking or banning. Based on her past behaviour I see little hope that a topic ban or good behaviour probation would be worthwhile. I am glad to see that the case looks like it will be accepted. Mike Christie (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ling.Nut

I am afraid that I don't have high hopes that this will go very well, if that's an acceptable thing to say. My reason is this: the whole focus of an Arb case is on the individuals involved... heck, Mattisse's name's atop the page! and here I am, talking about Mattisse!.. And the format seems as if the people are squared off against each other, toe-to-toe. For that reason, I must humbly predict that this Arb case, if accepted, is quite likely to devolve into a big mess. Mattise does very commendably well when he/she does not perceive him/herself to be in conflict with others. Unfortunately, the whole format of an Arb case (as I said) simply looks and smells adversarial. And Mattisse emphatically does not do well when he/she perceives him/herself to be in conflict with someone. What should Arbs do if they accept the case? Neither carrots nor sticks directed at Mattisse are likely to provide a basis for long-term, positive change – since both can be perceived as messages "about Mattisse", rather than as feedback on the dynamics of interactions. Ditto for a mentor; after a while, it will all seem as though the mentor is taking sides or evaluating Mattisse personally rather than providing unbiased feedback on behavior. That's not likely to help Mattisse in any meaningful way. Probably the only hope is a strong request for Mattisse to voluntarily disengage immediately and for a long time whenever anything seems to be becoming a conflict. This may involve dropping articles near and dear to his/her heart. If he/she is unwilling to drop articles that he/she feels passionate about, then... I don't see how he/she can avoid believing that every disagreement is an intensely personal conflict. Again in my humble opinion, speaking merely as a well-wishing colleague, Mattisse does not need to focus upon him/herself, nor upon any other individuals named here or elsewhere. In fact, as I said here, Mattisse emphatically needs to stop focusing on other people... Instead of seeing every disagreement as a personal attack, he/she needs to evaluate his/her words and actions, analyzing how that behavior is most likely to be interpreted by an average individual. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with G-guy below that Mattisse has been trying especially hard lately. I also agree that more recent events should be given much more weight than older ones. I also agree that the way to deal with Mattisse is to minimize comments that might create a perception that the situation is hostile, and instead focus merely on a few points of behavior, or a few editorial points. Having said that, I still will be pleasantly shocked if this goes well. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geometry guy

The incident which precipitated this request for arbitration was a pretty minor one: Mattisse nominated Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology for a community GAR. Such nominations happen all the time and are encouraged because the good article process relies upon reassessment to maintain standards to a much greater extent than the featured article process does.

Unfortunately, minor events involving Mattisse easily spiral out of control. I experienced this myself in February over Scientology in Germany. However, I'm not aware of many other flashpoints since January, and my impression is that Mattisse has been making a determined effort to avoid such conflicts and (apart from this incident, for which she later apologized) I have had entirely positive interactions with her since then.

She can overreact to criticism and disagreement, but the simple solution (for me) is to underreact in response. In this incident, an overreaction to a normal procedure may have triggered the chain reaction. Where the overreaction is accidental, I have a great deal of sympathy: no editor should be made to walk on eggshells because of another's sensitivities. Where I see signs of deliberate exploitation of Mattisse's Achilles heel, my sympathy evaporates instantly.

If there is to be an arbitration case here, I urge arbitrators to concentrate on recent activity, censure those who dig up past history and old grievances, and look for small measures to alter the dynamic. Otherwise, the RfArb may become the train wreck that Ling.Nut forsees above. Geometry guy 21:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

It looks like this case may well be accepted. I was personally rather hoping it would not be. I've said before, my contact with Mattisse has been rather limited, but also generally positive. Having reviewed some of the material submitted by others, I can understand that might not be the case for all others, at least sometimes at least in part due to their own conduct. And I agree with several of the above that this matter, if the ArbCom takes it, will very likely have a number of recriminations cast about by all parties, probably without any real benefits to the project or the parties involved. Such a situation would be less than productive, and would almost certainly increase the feelings of ill-will among at least some of the parties involved. If the case is accepted, as it looks it may well be, I fervently hope that all parties involved show some measure of constraint during the proceedings. I can see that Mattisse's behavior may have in some cases been less than what we would hope for. The same can be said for several of the other people involved. Yeah, we're all human, what a surprise. But I sincerely hope that everyone involved will conduct themselves well during the proceedings, because the recriminations of several parties seem to be the root cause of this matter. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Mattisse mentioned "John Hill". I think s/he got the name wrong, but we have discussed the matter and I have agreed to speak for that party in this proceeding, if that is acceptable to the committee. John Carter (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

Again, much like in the recent ScienceApologist (SA) case, here you have an example of an extremely productive, vested/established contributor who also causes more then his/her share of problems. The corrective action in the SA case, as far as I know, appeared to work ok, so I suggest something along those lines here. If "supervised editing", however, doesn't seem the right way to go, then perhaps a more severe restriction is, unfortunately, in order. Cla68 (talk) 00:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed that the SA remedy didn't work out that well. Nevertheless, I notice that in that case the Committee did try to come up with a new and different kind of corrective action and I commend the effort. I hope you'll keep trying. Dealing with difficult, established contributors is a thorny problem. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Looie496

You have been steadily handling two cases per month, and accepting four. You are headed for trouble at this rate. You either have to find a way to work a lot faster or accept fewer cases. It seems to me that this case can be handled by the community, or at least, that an attempt at a community ban from reviewing is the next step. Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Erik9

The belief that everyone is out to get you may easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The only effective method to deal with such editors is to ban them, the sooner, the better. Erik9 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

I've asked the two named parties to update or submit their thoughts on what the case scope should be and who the named parties should be. Other should feel free to state their opinions on this above as well. If this case is accepted, could the notifying clerk please co-ordinate with the arbitration committee concerning the scope of the case and the named parties (which will be provisionally decided based on the statements above). Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/4/0)

Accept. This looks like it's been building up for some time, and accordingly I think it should be looked into. Wizardman 19:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. With regard to the timing of this vote, I note that Matisse has expressly declined to file a statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mattisse has now made a statement, I have reconsidered my vote anew. Having done so, my "accept" stands. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse as an involved and non-impartial person. I will say something in the previous section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse, although I do encourage acceptance of the case. I may make a statement or (if the case is accepted) provide evidence in the future. Risker (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse - I had an unpleasant encounter with Matisse as an administrator in the past. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am wary of trials in absentia. Despite Matisse declining to participate, I would like to see a statement from Matisse or at least a statement made by someone on her behalf. I will ask at her talk page if she is willing to make a statement here, or whether someone would be willing to make a statement on her behalf. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Threaded discussion removed. 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had the following exchange at Matisse's talk page. I suggest that no case be opened or accepted for 48 hours while Matisse takes time to think about this, and if Matisse has not responded by then (or entered a statement above), that a motion be proposed at that point acknowledging Matisse's contributions and noting her stated desire to leave the project, and requiring her to contact ArbCom if she wishes to resume editing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Accept - have been noting the later statements asking for this to be dealt with sensitively and for the need to avoid a train-wreck of a case. I will try (partially responding to Looie here) to help this case be dealt with expeditiously and try and help minimise any drama (I fear attempts at community sanction might involve said drama). Noting here that areas like featured article candidate discussions (and reviews), by their nature, do involve editors that often need to work closely together, but that long-term disputes can arise due to personality issues that go beyond disputes over intellectual principles. I think I would be correct to say that the aim here is to minimise disruption to the featured content production process, while trying to maintain (even increase) the input of good and excellent reviews (without sideshows of drama). What might be best here is to discuss several options during the case and see which will get the best results while still being workable. If anyone is aware of any previous cases like this (within or outside arbitration or mediation), please can they let us know. My view, from what I've read so far, is that people's views on this depend on which aspect of Mattisse they have encountered, and if they encountered both the good and the bad, whether they think the good outweighs the bad, or vice-versa. I will be aiming for a balanced view, and I would urge those submitting evidence to aim for that as well, or to at least to make clear how extensive their interactions with Mattisse have been. One other question I will have is how common is it for featured content discussions themselves, and the people involved in them, to end up in disputes, is some level of dispute needed in such a process, and how are other such disputes normally handled? Carcharoth (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Mattisse confirms she meant John Carter, I have no problems having him act as an advocate in this case, and had already suggested that such might be appropriate. Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Roger Davies ^talk 02:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. On May 06, added by Mattisse to the Torment List after I commented on a GAR. Then invited to participate in this case. Since I've not had other significant interaction with her that I recall, I don't think a statement is needed beyond this comment and recuse. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Abstain. There are certainly long-term issues here. However, I feel strongly that an arbitration case is not the best way forward. I would strongly encourage everyone involved to seek another way to resolve their concerns. Arbitration is a blunt instrument not well suited to resolving nuanced issues, especially in a case where the adversarial nature of the process is likely to exacerbate the situation. --Vassyana (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Clearly a long-running problem of a serious nature. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT

Initiated by Shoemaker's Holiday 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Arbcom_case_opened

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Policy RFC

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

WP:NOT#PLOT has shown very little stability over its time in policy, and was added after a mere three people voted for its inclusion, while 3 other people opposed it. It has been consistently controversial, and the language has proven completely unstable, wavering greatly.

I opened an RfC on it, and, in a straw poll, 55 people said that, in principle, WP:NOT should not cover plot summaries, to 54 who said it should. This does not even cover the wording, which, as I said, has never been stable.

Policies, at the top of their page, say that they have "widespread agreement". It's clear that WP:NOT#PLOT cannot get agreement in any form. However, the people who want it in have turned the page into a circus, insisting that, despite the poll showing it has no consensus, it should remain in anyway.

If the most broad-based question possible, simply asking if it should discuss plot summaries at all, cannot show consensus, then clearly no actual wording is going to get any sort of consensus.

This makes a nonsense of policy. I have tried to participate in discussions in order to settle this without coming here, but the people who are in favour have personally attacked me, engaged in hysterics, repeatedly claimed I didn't hear that, and generally the process has been turned into a circus sideshow by people trying desperately to keep it in, lack of consensus for it be damned.

Since a few people who insist it MUST be in WP:NOT are not going to stop editwarring, misrepresenting the reasons people say it should be removed no matter how many times we explain what our motivations really are, throwing up constant attacks and screeds, and so on, it's clear that anything short of Arbcom is not going to settle this stupid mess, and let us move on to useful actions, like trying to find out what should actually be said about plot summaries in policies or guidelines, if the current version has no consensus.

Examples:

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#What_the_RfC_indicated - Gavin Collins throws personal attacks around, and claims Encyclopedia Britannica is not encyclopedic, because it provides evidence against his claims.

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Why_WP:NOT.23PLOT_must_remain_policy More hysterics.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

I strongly urge that unless ArbCom wants to turn this into Episodes and Characters 4, to not take this case for several reasons.

First, we're still looking at the results of the straw poll initiated by SH, and technically the RFC is still inside of 30 days. (It opened on the 14th) so we're still gathering opinions.

Second, the RFC only determined if PLOT should be in NOT. Even SH's original post suggested then that discussion should be opened to figure where to place it if there wasn't consensus to keep it. I agree that there may be strong enough consensus to move PLOT out of NOT, but we haven't figured out where that end point is, as that is still being discussed (eg is it still policy, or is it only a guideline, and should it apply to both fiction and non-fiction, meaning that WAF is not the right place for it). Thus, there is still ongoing discussion with plenty of reconcilable differences and thus no need for ArbCom intervention yet. It may be we cannot resolve it in the future, but we're not at that point yet.

Finally, no other DR steps have been taken primarily because of the above. Ok, NOT has been fully protected at times (And currently is now) because editors are trying to bold and removing it and others put it back (I'm guilty of the latter myself), but that's not a normal DR route.

The only question that may be on the table is the fact that we have a policy statement that, in principle has support to be at least a guideline, is marked as under discussion (via an inline tag), and may be moved elsewhere - is it appropriate to remove that until a new home is found or better to keep it and marked disputed until that home is determined? Based on the way the Date Linking case is going, patience is a virtue and waiting for the resolve of the discussion is the better course of action. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Carcharoth

In response to the "status" of fiction notability, the last version of FICT (aka the Phil Sandifer version) failed to gain consensus due primarily to devil-in-the-details. However, that hasn't resulted in failure to continue working on something that is less detailed as to specifics and emphasizes more a case-by-case evaluation, possibly leaving it as an essay that suggests that its impossible to quantify how fiction articles are kept. Part of why this has not heated up is that TTN has not be active since the start of the year and no one has pushed for any major fiction merges/etc. The most recent incident of such was an attempted merge at List of South Park episodes, which was resolved due to efforts of several to show that that a few random episodes were notable, with the good faith assumption further work would be done to establish the rest, which continues to be done (the SP project is doing an GA/FA drive to help this).

So it is not that there is an issue of irreconcilable differences, but instead just continued work. There are a few editors in the debate that continue to hold extreme positions and make it difficult to determine the intermediate consensus point but has not significantly entered into behavioral problems - or at least ones that can be enforced at this time given the wording of the second aspect of the Ep&Char 2 remedy about urging editors to work together. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to add that this is the type of behavioral issues that are threatening to destabilize work towards consensus. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DreamGuy

The person asking for ArbCom to step in claims: "Since a few people who insist it MUST be in WP:NOT are not going to stop editwarring, misrepresenting the reasons people say it should be removed no matter how many times we explain what our motivations really are, throwing up constant attacks and screeds, and so on"; This is certainly quite rich considering that it's the people who want to remove the plot section from WP:NOT who aren't willing to accept that they do not have consensus to do so and that they need consensus before getting to do what they want. Policy doesn't change without consensus, period. This filing is yet another example of an attempt by someone to wikilawyer to get what they want instead of following the normal process. At this point, the process is that they have to work to get a consensus to make a change. That's it. There's nothing here that requires ArbCom to step in unless the members want to send notice to the project that they're willing to get dragged into every content dispute out there as long as some party really wants to get their way but can't be bothered to work towards getting a broad base of support for it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if I can bring up a related point that has always bugged me: Why are policy pages even editable? Guidelines too for that matter. Once they are fully formed, a consensus should be needed to make any change, and that should be forged and fully demonstrated and endorsed on the talk page before any edits are made. The problem we have now is that it's relatively easy for a group of editors who have been told that something they've done is against policy to just go and change the policy page, either on their own stealthily and hope nobody catches it or through tag teaming with similar other upset editors. Sometimes they make sub pages that people aren't watching and edit them and then try to edit the main policy to reflect the subpage. Even polls and votes shouldn't change policies unless there is demonstrated site-wide support to do so, and even there I'm sure lots of things in NOT could be voted out by a mass of newbies and others wanting their Simpsons trivia to stay in articles, and heaven forbid if a collection of spammers ever get together to take the teeth out of WP:EL (we already had people take out the restrictions against YouTube and encourage copyvios as supposed "fair use"). These pages need to be held to a much higher standard than mere article pages. DreamGuy (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Locke9k

I strongly recommend that the ArbComm committee reject this arbitration request and instead return debate to a freshly created RFC, better organized and conducted to result in consensus rather than polarized voting.

When Shoemaker's holiday created the RFC in question, he included a straw poll from the very beginning of the RFC, placed before the discussion section. The strawpoll allowed for two extreme and polarized positions; either to outright support or outright oppose any statement on plot in WP:NOT. This 'poisoned the well' and turned the RFC into a voting contest between two largely fixed sides (led vocally and often conetentiously by Shoemaker's holiday on that 'against' side and Gavin Collins and other on the 'for' side. The combined effect of the straw poll and the perhaps excessive dominance of the debate by a few parties has diverted any real collaborative search for a moderate consensus position. Many of the editors who voted either for or against might very well be amenable to a more centrist consensus position were a more thorough and collegial discussion conducted. For example, one of the oppose "votes" also stated: "that the total coverage of fictional topics here must not be limited to plot"; this editor clearly has been 'shoehorned' into an oppose vote by the polarized design of the straw poll, despite the fact that he does not actually oppose any mention of plot in this policy. The truth is that both in the way he set up the RFC and in his description of the outcome, Shoemaker's Holiday has unintentionally exaggerated and polarized the uniformity and extremity or the positions on this issue; furthermore, polarized debate has impeded productive discussion.

I thus suggest that this ArbComm request be denied, that the old RFC be closed and archived to avoid confusion, and that a new RFC be created, without a straw poll, to serve as a more honest community discussion in search of a consensus solution: either a more moderate wording acceptable to more people or a consensus as to which other policy/guideline is a more appropriate location. I would further suggest that highly partisan proponents on either side (in particular those mentioned above) restrain themselves from excessive participation in a new RFC. It is enough to clearly state their position once and offer slight clarifications later if necessary. Repeated harping on the same points or consistent argumentative responses to anyone with a diverging viewpoint have been common in the current RFC and stymie the search for a broad consensus. Locke9k (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sceptre

Regardless of whether the case is accepted or not, ArbCom need to ensure that the current endemic problem of people closing discussions in which they have participated in is stopped. It's seriously becoming a major process problem. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Protonk

For those not following along at home, this dispute is effectively an extension of E&C2/3, without the AfD bit. I don't think there is a meaningful role for the committee here. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hobit

The serious, and wider, issue here is what happens to policy when it no longer has consensus? Do we need a super-majority to remove policy or is it enough to show that it lacks consensus? This issue won't be resolved until we have an answer to that question. So address it now, or address it later, I don't see the parties involved resolving the problem until that issue is addressed. Hobit (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the notion that the RfC "Poisoned the Well" is fairly unreasonable. The basic question is, and should be, if PLOT belongs in NOT. The question didn't address the form it belongs in, it simply asked if it does belong. The majority (by a very small margin as of a few hours ago) said no. I'd assume the "centrist" view, as Locke9k would have it, would support it in NOT, but in a different form. I think the question asked in the RfC was exactly the right one to ask. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for muscling in, but I think Hobit's "what happens to policy when it no longer has consensus?" hits the nail on the head. This is a consitutional issue, concerning the rules that govern the rules. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Randomran

Shoemakers Holiday has requested ArbCom make what's essentially a policy decision. If this is the new role of ArbCom, I have a bunch of policy questions waiting in the wings.
Discussion had finally progressed away from the old polemics of "keep NOT#PLOT exactly the same" versus "delete NOT#PLOT entirely", and trying to find a compromise wording or placement. But Shoemakers Holiday was unhappy with how that discussion was going and WP:BOLDly tried to achieve a result with no effort to build consensus.
Shoemakers Holiday used the WP:3RR as an entitlement to try and remove his undesirable policy 3 times in just 40 minutes. [17] [18] [19]
Shoemakers Holiday has centered out the bad conduct of Gavin Collins, who was recently the subject of an RFC that included incivility. The conduct of one user is should not be used as a sword for Shoemakers Holiday to achieve his desired policy goals, or to silence all people who disagree with him in good faith.
Shoemakers Holiday has tried to turn his non-consensus changes around on the people he disagrees with by relying upon a straw poll. But this fails to acknowledge WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY:

... determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Reliance on a polarized straw poll between two extreme options is also a failure to understand WP:CONSENSUS:

Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus,

So basically, there is no case here for ArbCom, because there is no user conduct issue. To the extent that there is a user conduct issue, it's that Shoemakers Holiday ignored good faith efforts to build consensus and proceeded with WP:BOLD changes followed by borderline WP:EDITWARring. However, I believe that Shoemakers Holiday is acting in good faith because he selectively forgot a few common sense policies, such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY in their entirety. At worst, ArbCom should issue a firm reminder advising all of us to have a discussion about how to rephrase or move NOT#PLOT in a way that will achieve consensus, and remind us to be civil WP:CONSENSUS-builders rather than aggresive WP:BOLD editors on such a contentious issue. Randomran (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-emptive WP:BATTLEGROUND comment: I fully expect people to pour into this thread, asking ArbCom to pick between two policy extremes (keep NOT#PLOT exactly the same versus remove it entirely). I just hope that ArbCom doesn't take the WP:BAIT. I also hope that most people aren't so fundamentally stuck in a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that they even try to fuel that fire. I'm just an average editor, but I'll be watching and judging the people who do. Randomran (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Carcharoth

There has been progress on fiction to the degree that people are recognizing what they can't accomplish. Nobody can really enforce WP:N or WP:NOT#PLOT with an iron fist, just as nobody can really save the majority of articles about fictional topics. Moreover, nobody can remove WP:N or WP:NOT#PLOT as good general practices on Wikipedia, just as nobody can enforce them strictly. It's helpful to rule the extremes out, and I've seen a lot of people soften their position in hopes of building a consensus. We're not there yet, though.

Since ArbCom can't make policy, the most helpful thing that ArbCom can do is help us from retreading the same ground. This might be as affirmative as showing us the next step -- for example, who would be party to a mediation that involves literally one hundred (probably more) editors who have differing views on a key guideline? But short of this, it could be as minimal as pointing out that retreading the same old policy proposals is a user conduct issue. It's a refusal to get the point, which is a form of disruptive editing. If ArbCom said, straight up, that we're not allowed to fall back into the old "remove WP:PLOT" versus "keep it exactly the same" proposals, the discussion would move forward very quickly with some kind of middle ground. Randomran (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Crossin

While i personally find WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT a thorn in my proverbial side, the fact of the matter is, there are no specific user conduct issues to arbitrate. Maybe a note about standard editing decorum, but nothing more. And Carcharoth, you suggest mediation. Well, speaking as a mediator, I wouldn't mediate this. It's unworkable. Too many parties, many who have the "it's my way or no way" mentality, meaning compromise, which is a key component of mediation, would be hard to achieve, making mediation futile. But i'm preaching to the righteous here. You know this, and i trust you know what to do. Reject the case, let the community deal with it. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

There's no user conduct issue here apart from that displayed by Shoemaker's Holiday. WP:POLICY says "The process for changing the status of a guideline or policy should normally be similar to the process for promoting a page: Start a discussion on the talk page outlining the reasons for the proposed change in status ... and solicit community input. After allowing a reasonable amount of time for comments, an independent editor should close the discussion and evaluate the consensus." The onus is clearly on those wishing to change a policy wording to gain consensus, and despite not having such a consensus, Shoemaker's Holiday - who was clearly not an independent editor - implemented the change anyway, and then edit-warred over it.

Also, Shoemaker's Holiday clearly misreperesents the issue in his statement - the vast majority of the disruptiveness on WP:NOT in recent times has been from those wishing to remove PLOT, and at least one editor has been blocked for it. I doubt if this RfAR will be accepted, but an RFC/U for Shoemaker's Holiday to inspect his clearly disruptive editing may be in order. Black Kite 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Pixelface

It should not be this difficult to change a policy page. And this is about user conduct. Multiple involved parties of E&C1 and E&C2 (and editors of those case pages) simply refuse to let anyone remove WP:NOT#PLOT from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, even though that section of policy does not have consensus to be policy. You can see who's been re-adding it here.[20] On May 5, 2009, the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was protected for 3 days[21] for edit-warring over the inclusion of WP:NOT#PLOT in that policy, with Shoemaker's Holiday doing the removing (since an RFC has shown that that section does not have consensus to be policy[22]), and with Kww (who Arbcom has previously considered a topic ban of) and Black Kite (an involved party of E&C2) doing the re-adding. Here is the range of edits. Here Black Kite admits that the current RFC on whether WP:NOT should include a section on plot summaries is "NOT a consensus" and yet he's re-adding WP:NOT#PLOT to that policy. It makes no sense. The policy WP:NOT has been protected multiple times in the past due to WP:NOT#PLOT — on April 24 for 3 days[23] (later changed to 1 week[24]), April 6 for 3 days[25], February 6 for 1 week[26], December 30 for 1 month [27], and also May 13, 2008 (by Black Kite).[28]

Regarding the events of December 30, I removed WP:NOT#PLOT and Jack Merridew, who I told Arbcom should not be unbanned, who had been unbanned a few weeks earlier, and who had agreed to avoid "all disruptive editing" as a condition of being unbanned, repeatedly reverted me and accused me of "vandalism" (edit range), something Sceptre (an involved party of E&C1 and E&C2) has also done in the past, in April 2008[29]. (Jack Merridew and Sceptre were both indefinitely blocked in 2008, but later unblocked.) Jack Merridew was warned by his mentor and current arbitrator Casliber about those edits. Jack Merridew started an ANI thread, and Masem (who has re-added WP:NOT#PLOT to WP:NOT more than anyone on Wikipedia[30] and who had previously opened 2 ANI threads[31] [32] over my removals of WP:NOT#PLOT, which resulted in no action) created a user RFC on me, which never contained any diffs of the certifiers trying and failing to resolve a dispute with me, and none of them even saying which dispute they tried to resolve. The policy was unprotected 3 days later[33] after my request for unprotection[34] and my pledge to avoid that policy in January, which Kww said was a "weak pledge."[35] At the user RFC I pledged to not edit WP:NOT in January, February, and March 2009[36] and I kept that pledge. I have not edited WP:NOT since December 30.[37] Yet the dispute over WP:NOT#PLOT continues. I suppose I'm an expert on this topic, since I've made over 330 edits to WT:NOT [38], more than anyone on Wikipedia, and most of them related to WP:NOT#PLOT. I've written User:Pixelface/On NOTPLOT to explain why WP:NOT#PLOT cannot be policy. I've created User:Pixelface/NOTPLOT threads to show just how long and how much that section of policy has been disputed and discussed (long before my RFC in January 2008). And I've created User:Pixelface/NOTPLOT edits to show each and every edit to WP:NOT#PLOT. To say that it's unstable is an understatement.

Certain editors insist that there must be a consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT before it can be removed, and I, along with several other editors claim that in order to be policy, it must have consensus to be policy. I anticipated the current problem regarding the current RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT on January 2[39], after Protonk floated the idea of another RFC[40]. Policies describe standards that have wide acceptance in the community. Policy must reflect consensus. If there had to be consensus to remove something from policy before it could be removed, every new addition would have to be debated for days, and the addition (which may not reflect consensus) would remain on the page during that time. An editor could simply make any edit to any policy page and then stonewall for years with a group of like-minded editors to keep it there. Certain editors insist that there must be consensus to remove WP:NOT#PLOT, but there was never consensus to add it in the first place[41].

An article about an TV episode and an article about a fictional character requires a plot summary. After E&C1 closed, I started an RFC on WP:NOT#PLOT in January 2008 since there were several threads on WT:NOT about removing WP:NOT#PLOT even then[42][43]. That RFC was inconclusive, but I think the current RFC is definitive. There is no consensus for WP:NOT#PLOT to be in WP:NOT. Personally, I first removed WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT on March 10, 2008, like I explained at my user RFC. That was earlier in the day before E&C2 closed. In October 2007, Sgeureka said that TTN "enforces" PLOT, and TTN's actions were so controversial among the community that Arbcom placed him under a six-month editing restriction (which he violated at least twice and was blocked for). I could tell then that WP:NOT#PLOT did not have consensus to be policy. At the time there was also no consensus to delete several plot-only articles at AFD, such as this AFD. This is how that article looked when it was snow kept. The dispute over WP:NOT#PLOT has been seriously going on for over a year (and much longer if you look at User:Pixelface/NOTPLOT threads). In April 2008, I explained my removal of WP:NOT#PLOT on April 16, 2008 (which AGK blocked me for "vandalism" for). AGK "retired"[44][45] in December.

I've removed WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT more than anyone, and I think my multiple removals of WP:NOT#PLOT from WP:NOT are borne out by the current RFC[46], which shows there is no consensus for WP:NOT to have a section on plot summaries. Since the RFC will "officially" close soon, Arbcom may not have to get involved, but it may benefit everyone here if they talk about consensus/no consensus to add something to policy, consensus/no consensus to be policy, and consensus/no consensus to remove something from policy. The dispute will not stop if certain editors keep on insisting on "consensus to remove" (even though there was never consensus to add in the first place, and even though at various times there have been a majority of people who say WP:NOT should not have a section on plot summaries). The situation is disgusting. Shoemaker Holiday's removals may have been premature, but the RFC has been pretty much split down the middle since it started, which no indication of drastically changing. --Pixelface (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

There is no consensus on what the policy should be, and bringing it to arb com will not help us get to one. It is reasonable that there be a higher level of consensus for policy and guidelines than that required at afd, because an afd affects only one article. PAs I see it, the reason why all proposals have bogged down at the stage of details, is because some people on each side would rather have no policy than have a policy they don't 100% agree with. and are therefore conducting what amounts to a filibuster.It will continue until the general body of interested Wikipedians get tired of them, which I hope will come soon. I do wish we could find a new way to structure these discussions, because I've participated in numerous attempts to find some clever wording, and I am very reluctant to waste time in continuing in the present environment. If any member of arb com has some brilliant ideas on how to do this, I wish they'd suggest them privately as individual editors. We could use some new ideas, either on procedure or--even better--on the underlying issues. DGG (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lankiveil

I strongly urge ArbCom to reject this case. About the only thing I agree with in Shoemaker's Holiday's introductory statement is that WP:NOT#PLOT has been controversial. Without getting into the specifics of the case, we have reached a state where there is no clear consensus on a way forward; while the poll has been characterised as giving a narrow victory to the "remove" camp, a careful reading of the results will in fact reveal a wide range of viewpoints and opinions far more complicated than a simple binary "keep/remove" situation. Further dialogue is needed to resolve this impasse, and I don't that there's anything that the ArbCom can do with its powers that will hasten this process.

Full disclosure, I did also venture an opinion in that poll. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/3/0)

Who are the parties to the case? Are there any user-conduct issues involved that rise to the level of warranting arbitration findings? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline per my colleagues' observations below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - no specific user-conduct issues have been identified that are outside the scope of the community at this time. Risker (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. Not an ArbCom case at this time. Premature for user conduct problems and not in scope otherwise. I see no pressing need for ArbCom to make an exception and to get involved in a Community decision at this time. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above, I'm not seeing an arbcom dispute here. Wizardman 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse per the previous related arbitration request. On the general issues of conduct, independent of the content area, I would urge arbitrators and/or the community to reiterate proper conduct here as regards seeking and implementing consensus for policy changes. I would also urge mediation if the efforts to produce a workable fiction articles guideline have come to a halt. Alternatively, some effort should be made to identify what is impeding the process. If progress has been made since last time, maybe someone could provide an update? Carcharoth (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse - involved and non impartial as an inclusionist from way back. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. per Flo. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject. The meat of the proposed case seems to invite us to determine what policy is and intervene in an ongoing editing dispute; this is not the purpose of the committee. The user conduct questions do not rise to the level of seriousness which would justify a case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. --Vassyana (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - No user-conduct issues. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Fayssal and Flo Roger Davies ^talk 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. No recent user conduct issues have been brought to our attention. All I can suggest is that due to the divisive nature of this issue, both sides should participate in the development of any future RFCs before comments are invited, and it might be helpful to prevent participation during the RFC by anyone who voted in prior polls, in order to gain new views on the matter. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baronets naming dispute

Initiated by Tznkai (talk) at 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

tznkai (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Previous arbitration
lengthy ANI thread
This situation is quickly devolving into a dramafest with ancillary distracting issues including an argument between Giano and Gallglass, an argument about Bishonen and Sandsteins' block and unblocks, and overall involves allegations of conflicts of interest. We are beyond the point where a friendly Request for Comment will help, there is too much baggage.

Statement by Tznkai

My involvement in this situation is purely administrative, being neither Irish nor British in ethnicity, citizenship, or persuasion, and it is my opinion as an administrator that this will end poorly without some sort of Arbitration.

The dispute I believe, goes roughly as follows. Vintagekits moved a series of Baronet articles, removing their title (Nth so and so and such and such), enforcing what he believed was a proper style. Kittybrewster objected by requesting BrownHairedGirl to revert and to reinstate the topic ban which had just expired. (For the record, I was the enacting administrator on that topic ban). BrownHairedGirl and Vintagekits carried on a lengthy and unpleasant discussion on their talk page while engaging in an edit war over multiple page moves, which eventually ended with Vintagekits reverting once again, and BrownHairedGirl blocking Vintagekits and reporting the block for discussion on ANI. In the meantime, both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster opened up ANI threads against each other. Throughout the course of the dispute, Vintagekits unblocked and blocked several times, and was topic banned by Sandstein Close to the same time, I started a thread proposing a three way topic ban on Vintagekits, BrownHairedGirl, and Kittybrewster, under the theory that all three were too emotionally involved to make useful edits to the area. The threads make the following issues apparent:

Vintagekits maintained throughout that he was editing within policy, specifically the Manual of Style on naming conventions, but was willing to edit war to maintain it.
Vintagekits used an accusatory and counter-productive tone throughout, which escalated with blocks and sanctions.
BrownHairedGirl Edit warred with Vintagekits before blocking Vintagekits over the same issue an example
BrownHairedGirl's comments in the thread were (in my opinion) emotional, lengthy, nasty, and counter-productive
Kittybrewster has a conflict of interest.
There is an overall feeling that this dispute was about politics and personal enmity between these three, instead of garden variety edit warring.

The community consensus that emerged was to topic ban for six months both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, and for BrownHairedGirl to make no administrative actions in the area. I believe however, that this is a temporary measure at best as none of the issues were actually resolved.

I would like the Committee to examine several issues in particular:

Investigate allegations of conflict of interest.
Examine the behavior of the named parties, and to determine a solution or containment to their disagreements, especially in relations to the edit warring.
Discard, modify, or endorse the extant topic ban.
Of course, to examine my involvement in the matter as a named party.

I further request that the committee ignore the ancillary Giano/Bishonen/Sandstein/et al issues.

--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to John Vandenberg

I think Fozzie's motions are worth considering as a starting point, but may not fully deal with the (perception personal animosity) and conflict of interest, but disposing by motion may be in order. As far as the rest, I appreciate the desire to keep editors productive in places they wish to help out, any solution that requires more admin hours I believe is doomed to failure. The Troubles/Baronets/Irish-British topic area has a very high burnout rate (Alison and Fozzie are two major examples) and the remaining admins are somewhat marginalized (sometimes through no fault of their own) by mistrust. You will quite frankly, need to assemble a task force a few admins wide, and many, many admins deep.--Tznkai (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

It has been brought to my attention that Kittybrewster is violating his topic ban, claiming I am "insufficiently independent" and there is not consensus to enact it. I believe that he is very mistaken on both counts. At best, Kittybrewster is being disruptively stubborn, and is at worse, baiting Vintagekits. I will, out of an excess of caution refrain from blocking him myself, but I strongly urge the Committee and other administrators to intercede.--Tznkai (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I'm probably going to burn bridges here, but, here's my thoughts.

A) Vintagekits is well known to the Arbitration Committee as an instutituion (if not to the individual members of the Arbitration Committee). He has a long and storied history of.. being problematic in certain areas. Please note, I'm not saying he's not useful to the project in other areas, (he's one of the few users I can think of that have a FA to their credit after a community ban that was later modified).However, British Baronetcies is an area where I think VK cannot help but be disruptive. Some would say his "Two weeks till I bring the pain" type comments is evidence of WP:POINT-y behavior. I'm thinking that at least a limited PERMANENT topic ban, specifically in the area of British nobility is probably a good thing.

B) Kittybrewster is another user who has.... a history in this area. A lot of it mirrors that of Vintagekits, I cannot imagine two more people diametrically opposed in worldview. I do not know if he has a COI regarding baronetcies, considering the rank he holds. He does have a strong POV in these areas (not saying he's wrong or he's right, just that he has one). Combined with the voluminous past history (of which the Troubles ArbCom is not a full record), perhaps a topic ban from the area as well is for the best, encyclopedia wise

C) BrownHairedGirl... I can only think of two editors who have been knee deep in this whole thing as long as she has that are still administrators (Those are John and Rockpocket, for future reference). Even the two of them would tell you that they would really rather not deal with these areas any further then absolutely necessary. I think that it's time for me to echo some advice that was given to me, BHG, you've fought the good fight for so long, perhaps it would be best to let someone try to keep these areas above water. It's time to rest your arms, and focus on other areas of the encyclopedia that are not so maddening.

If I was to write a dispensatory motion in this case, it would be as follows:

A) The topic bans with regards to British baronetcies and British nobility in general on User:Vintagekits and User:Kittybrewster are confirmed. They are to last a mininum of six months, and the editors in question can submit a private request to the Arbitration Committee to have these sanctions lifted then. Vintagekits and Kittybrewster are advised that the Arbitration committee will review these topic bans no more then once every three months.

B) Due to past history of the use of alternate accounts amongst both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster, both are to disclose to the Arbitration Committee any and all accounts they have or will edit with in the future, and this topic ban applies to all accounts (or, just a straight limiter to one account.)

C) User:BrownHairedGirl is thanked for the amount of effort they have put into one of the most contentious areas in Wikipedia. However, it is the recommendation of the Arbitration Committee that BrownHairedGirl not use their administrative tools in this area any further, and let new blood try to keep the peace.

Just my two cents in the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to request for additional comment: As the committee can see from the statements that have been posted in the last 48 hours, I do not think "wiggle room" would be a good thing here. Mark the boundaries, make them clear. Seeing BHG's comments being added makes it clear that all three areas above that I suggested in my "motion" above will need to be handled for this issue to subside. SirFozzie (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to the clerk, but I just wanted to speak on the proposed de-adminning of BHG. I do not think that it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to take this action. If necessary, formally restrict her from using administrative tools in the area, but I think a desysopping is a bit over the top, especially for the message it sends to other administrators working in high conflict areas. Do I think BHG handled this situation well? To be frank, no. She's gotten in to deep to the situation, and isn't recognizing that fact as of yet. Think of it this way though. BHG is among the last surviving administrators who were willing to try to work in one of the most deeply felt, high conflict areas there is in Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is just as much to blame for this situation in not having more people working in the area as is BHG. Do we really want to dissuade more administrators from trying to work in high-traffic areas by de-adminning one who's made a mistake? I hope that the ArbCom Committee takes my advice seriously in this situation. SirFozzie (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BrownHairedGirl

I do not think that it is helpful at this point for arbcom to accept this case, because a mechanism is already being used resolve the substantive issues, and community-imposed topic ban on Vintagekits has removed the immediate conflict. An arbitration at this stage will divert energies from resolving the substantive dispute.

The mechanism is a list of contentious articles, which has helpfully been created by Vintagekits. Choess (talk · contribs), who is not a party to the dispute, has agreed to review the list to assess which articles can be moved and which cannot, and I have agreed to assist in that process. (We also need a systematic review of the page moves already done).

This dispute started solely because within hours of the expiry of Vintagekits's one-year topic ban from Baronets (imposed as a condition of the lifting of a community ban on him), he began a series of rapid-fire page moves of baronet articles, many of which have been subsequently demonstrated to be flawed (by creating disambiguation problems), exactly as happened on his previous such move-fest in August 2007. Vintagekits advertised this escapade with a countdown on his talk page accompanied by a series of threatening edit summaries: "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!". If Arbcom takes this case, it is important that this planned drama of probation-immediately-followed by rampage be examined closely, because everything else has flowed from the efforts of other editors to limit the damage caused by this deliberate repeat of a previous, similarly disruptive campaign by Vintagekits.

The existing guidance at WP:NCNT has stable for some years, and provides for use of the article titles only where disambiguation is needed. Multiple reuse of first names within these powerful families means that much disambiguation is needed, because it was common for many members of these extended families to have identical first and second names and to hold similar positions. While many articles on baronets many be unnecessarily disambiguated by title, careful checking is needed to identify in which articles this is the case, and which share names with other notables who are currently redlinked (this is a work-in-progress, so many dab pages which should exist have not yet been created). Unnecessary disambiguation causes much less damage than careless removal of disambiguators, not least because bots bypass any double redirects created by a page move. I have accepted throughout that there is some over-disambiguation of baronets, but stressed that much care is needed in identifying which articles do need to be disambiguated, and which do not.

When I started editing on saturday, I first loaded my watchlist, where I saw a mass of page moves (some of which I looked problematic), and a note on my talk page. I replied, noting that it looked like a matter for ANI, set about checking more articles, and rapidly got my a msg from Vintagekits, which accused me of creating a disambiguation page to "to distrupte and cause trouble". That hostility and aggression escalated in his further replies to me, a pattern which I have found repeatedly in the long history of abuse and threats I have received from Vintagekits.

Tznkai's depiction of my responses as "emotional, lengthy, nasty, and counterproductive" is deeply unfair: I have, for the umpteenth time, been on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse and threats from one of wikipedia's most serially-disruptive editors (Vintagkits), and I deplore the blame-the-victim logic of that accusation. I have indeed been emotional: I am scared to find that an editor who routinely hurls abuse is coming to blindly disrupt an area where I and others have put in a lot of work, with a stated unwillingness to help in the cleanup, and a prior warning to "be scared". Yes, my replies have been long, because while it's easy to concisely repeat "I was enforcing policy", it takes many more words to explain why the reality is more complicated. (WP:NCNT is a guideline not a policy, it does have an important exception to its general principle, and wikipedia works by consensus not by one editor deciding to "enforce" policy, even if they are right).

At this point it would much better to get on with fixing the substantive issue than to spend the next few months raking over the coals. However, if Arbcom take this case, I ask that Giano be joined as a party, because of his sustained role in stoking conflicts involving Vintagekits. Similarly, Bishonen's wheel-warring exacerbated this dispute and was not resolved at ANI: she should also be a party.

As to Vk, I want no involvement with him: the aggression and rudeness which he repeatedly displays is something I try hard to avoid, and there are several places in my talk archive where I have received abuse from for declining' to take an admin role in one of his fights. With Vintagekits, it's a case of damned-if-you-do, damned if you don't. On saturday, no action was taken at ANI about his aggression on my talk page, and well-meaning requests to engage in one-to-one discussion with him felt like being asked to sit down alone with a large and shouting thug. WP:CIVIL is a fundamental to collaboration, and "civil" does not mean "dont be scared - be VERY scared!!!!!!!!", "Two weeks and counting - whup-ass!!!", "unlucky for some!" and a so-called "request for dialogue" which opens with "That is possibly the most moronic logic I have ever had laid before me" and "Less of the bullshit, arm waving and drama". If anyone wants to know why women are grossly under-represented in any survey of wikipedia editors, the lack of enforcement action against this sort of male aggression may be one area to explore. (I know that some editors will object to me "playing the woman card" as it may described, but the excessive tolerance of this behaviour is a gender issue, and having been a victim of hate crime it pushes all my buttons). My responses were inevitably less than perfect.

Finally, I am concerned about the basis of the topic ban which has been imposed on Kittybewster. He did indeed do a mass of COI editing some years ago (which became so contentious that I blocked him twice), and that led to a big clearout of articles on non-notable members of his family. However, the only evidence I have seen since of any remotely COI editing by him is the creation of one article on a lake of dubious notability, with a thoroughly unacceptable link to his own website. Is the topic ban being imposed for that one article? Or for the pattern of misbehaviour which I thought had stopped two years ago, when he was thoroughly rebuked? So far I have seen no other evidence of anything more recent, though Will Beback did point to the need for a further cleanup of links to www.kittybrewster.com. If those links postdate the cleanup, we have a problem, but has anyone checked when they were added? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS In response to John Vandenberg's question below, surely the simple solution is a ban on page moves of articles on baronets other than through WP:RM. The content of the articles has not been in dispute here, merely the page names. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PPS John asks "are you recommending that we restrict only these users from moving articles on baronets, or a more broad restriction to also include newcomers?"

Either would help. Restricting only the nominated users would have the advantage of not constraining editors whose page moves have not been disputed, but runs the risks of creating an uneven playing field in which some editors could perform rapid moves which others could revert only with a complex process. I think that a generalised requirement (at least for a limited time) to use WP:RM would be more balanced, and would also have the advantage of requiring repeated consensus building, which would lead to a clarification of how the guidelines work in practice (the principles seem well-agreed, but the application is contentious; discussion of individual cases would expose any need for clarification, because guidelines are intended to reflect consensus rather than prescribe it). The long list of articles which Vk has created would be a good starting point, but other articles will appear along the way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Giano, the issue is not some sort of "challenge to my authority", much as Giano wants to try casting things that way. The problem here is simply one editor who has a passionate dislike of baronets (a group which intersects with my main area of work) and who has repeatedly indulged in mass-moving rampages without proper checking, causing disambiguation problems identified by many editors at ANI.

My concern is about Vintagekits repeated disruption in this area and his history of aggression towards those who edit in this area, a problem which is repeatedly exacerbated by Giano's interventions to muddy the waters by attacking those who complain about attacks or disruption by Vintagekits. Giano's repetition of fabrications such as that I try to stop others editing in this area impedes resolution of the problems, and runs completely counter to the quote at the top of his own talk page about editors who know something abut a subject being disrupted by a know-nothing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet assessed all the page moves, but some of the problems which they caused was listed in the recent ANI discussion, not just by me but by others, e.g.[47], [48], [49], [50], [51] (I think there were more listed elsewhere, but that will do for a start)

This tactic of denying everything, and claiming that there are no facts when they have already been set out in front of him, is one of the things that makes Vintagekits' move campaigns so disruptive, and so time-wasting for those who do actually examine the consequences of the page moves. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my objections to a topic ban for Kittybrewster from baronets in view of evidence posted at ANI by Phoe [52] that Kittybewster has continued to edit Arbuthnot articles despite a clear COI for which he was previously blocked by me. I urge that any topic ban on Vk and Kb includes a ban for both of them on articles relating to members of the Arbuthnot family. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban'I am saddened that arbitrators are discussing below a proposal to topic-ban me from knights and baronets. As I posted at ANI, myy main area of interest is not in baronets, it is in Members of Parliament. I am involved in this solely because a significant number of MPs before 1918 were baronets, and an exclusion from baronets has the effect of excluding me from significant chunks of my work on MPs because one editor (and only one) indulges in mass page moves. To take a few examples since 1st May, the topic ban would have prevented me from writing Ernest Craig, Sir Richard Martin, 1st Baronet and Sir John Leigh, 1st Baronet‎‎; it would also have prevented me from categorising and otherwise improving a series of other articles, such as [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]; and it would probably also have prevented me from working on articles on parliamentary constituencies, because nearly all of those I have worked on recently include some baronets in the list. None of that has been in any way controversial, and I apart from some snide comments at ANI by Giano (which he has not substantiated with any evidence), I see no complaint all about the quality of my work in this field (and there is rather a lot of it). However, the proposal would the exclude me from a very large chunk of this work, including (I think) from the work I did today on Lincoln (UK Parliament constituency), where many of those listed are baronets. How does that help us to what we are supposed to be here for, which is to build an encyclopedia? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to resolve the baronets dispute

This is a response to Flonight's comment that "All these users had the opportunity to find a more nuanced solution, but instead they chose to escalate the dispute. I don't think that banning KB and VK from the articles and allowing BHG to edit them is going to resolve the dispute"

It is unfair to say that "All these users had the opportunity to find a more nuanced solution, but instead they chose to escalate the dispute". The problem has repeatedly been that Vintagekits will not discuss the concerns of other editors about the need to disambiguate between people of presumed notability per WP:BIO (which was one of the issues raised right at the outset[58]), and even 8 days after this latest round of the dispute started, is still refusing to engage wth this point, despite at least 5 editors having posted to ANI with details of disambiguation problems caused by his moves (diffs above). This is exactly what happened last time Vintagekits ventured into this territory in August 2007: he does mass-moves, refuses to listen to concerns from other editors about how to apply the guideline at WP:NCNT, angrily denounces them as disruptive and provocative, and continues moving in breach of WP:BRD. I really do not see how discussion with him would have worked, because it is now five days since I posted on his talk page about some of the detailed checks which I consider necessary in this area, but he has made no response.

I refused a week ago to engage in a one-to-one discussion with him on my talk page, partly because of repeated experience that he simply does not listen to the other side, and aprtly because I was scared of the aggression involved in all the "be scared", "whup ass", "bullshit", comments etc which he was making. Right from the outset, Vintagekit's repeatedly expressed rage about this issue was boiling over, and I see no way of making progress with anyone who approaches a problem in a rage and who denounces as disruptive and provocative efforts by any other editors such as Benea to restore disambiguation. (Note: all of this was a day before he was blocked). Note that I have frequently participated in difficult content disputes elsewhere, without such dramas occurring, but that Vintagekits has started these storms in numerous locations, with many many other editors. It feels now that I risk being punished for being knowing too much about the topic where he chose to make his latest outburst.

I also see no logic in Flonight's comment below that "I don't think that banning KB and VK from the articles and allowing BHG to edit them is going to resolve the dispute". Why? This dispute arose solely because Vintagekits engaged in mass page moves. With Vintagekits out of the field, the dispute is over, and Choess is mounting a review which I have repeatedly supported, which will resokve any outstanding problems. So how does a summary topic ban on me assist in resolving the dispute? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on proposed desysopping

I note the proposal beloew to desysop me, and the concern from arbitrators that I have not sufficiently addrssed my use of admin tools against a prerson with who I was engaged in a content dispute. Let me say at the outset that I regret doing so, because the reaction to that has partially obscured the underlying issues, and that for the avoidance of any doubt I hereby give a firm assurance not to use admin toolks against Vintagekits ever again.

However, I also want to explain why I chose to do this, in light of how things appeared at the time. I knew that it was a problematic step, but I did it solely because it seemed to me at that point to be the lesser of two evils. Vintagekits's page moves had already been raised at length at ANI the previous day, and despite evidence from me and other editors of problems caused by those moves, he had resumed mass moves, and repeated his antagonistic repetition of any that were reverted. His moves the previous day had already led the bots to find double directs to bypass, and any reversal of those moves was turning out to be a very complicated business. It involving not just detailed checks of whether the moves had been done without causing ambiguity problems (as some had), but also checking whether redirects had been changed. I found that it could take 30 minutes to review the after-effects of one of just one of these moves, and any action to revert those which were problematic was being met with more aggression. There are a limited number of editors (maybe five) who know this territory well enough to investigate these things, and it seemed to me that unless a moratorium was applied to the moves, the result could be a huge amount of work needed to review and (where necessary correct) each move.

In the circumstances, where the BRD cycle had broken down and Vintagekits simply reverted my reversion of a WP:BOLD move, my immediate reaction was to post again at ANI. However, when I started considering what to write writing I felt that because there because of the complexity of the ambiguity issues involving baronets et al, the time that it would take to explain the problem in full would allow many more page moves to proceed, which unlike page edits cannot (AFAIK) be undone with rollback. So to ensure that moves were assesed by discussion before being made rather than afterawrds, it seemed to me to be best to apply the spirit of WP:IAR to apply a preventive block to maintain the status quo pending a proper resolution, and to immediately ask for a review of it an ANI, to allow univolved editors whether to decide whether to list or uphold the block. That is what I did: block applied 15:21, posted to Vintagekist talk page at 15:25[59], message at ANI posted 15:35[60].

In hindsight, a week later, I fully accept that there is a strong view at ANI (probably a consensus) that a block by an involved admin is always a wrong thing regardless of circumstances, even though several admins explicitly supported my block. If I knew that beforehand that this was the block would be perceived as such an unequivocally bad thing, I would definitely not have made it, but that's hindsight. I would definitely not make such a block now.

I am saddened that arbitrators are considering the extreme step of summary desysopping without even asking me for something like this summary of my view of what happened. My efforts since this storm arose have focused on trying to find a resolution to the substantive content issues, and I had not realised that this point was perceived as urgent and critical. If arbitrators do want to consider desysopping, please may I be afforded the normal process of a full hearing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Giano

I full endorse the statement by Tzankai, and request the Arbcom accept this case. I have been following this matter for years, which has brought about the inevitable cries of bias from one side or the other. At the moment, it is not a resurrection of The Troubles, and I am keen that it stays that way. That is mainly because the group of "socking baronets" have now been banned and only pop up occasionally (or so we hope) as IPS [61]. One of them (I think it was this one, but the page is blanked so I cant be sure, User:Counter-revolutionary) used to claim to be a real life friend of Kittybrewster, and indeed Kittybrewster followed me straight to that page [62], this is part of the problem, while much better than it was, there is some kind of bush telegraph that forbids other editors trying to edit those pages, remove over deferential and sycophantic terms, POV or even try to impose the MOS concerning the minor British aristocracy, and, not surprisingly, it brings out the worst in all concerned. I was amongst the first to spot the source of the problems there and have always kept members of the Arbcom fully informed, and I mean fully. My solution is to give me Admin powers for the sole purpose (I don't want them anywhere else) of policing the aristocracy and the now dwindling Irish problems - you might be surprised at what happens ;-). Giano (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do appolagise Kittybrewster, it was not Counter-Revolutionary who claimed to be KB's old friend, but another one of the "gang" User:Major Bonkers who oddly enough seems not to have edited since the others were banned. Giano (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Kittybrewster's "Response to Giano: Your point being what? " My point can be interpretated by the Arbcom, in any way that they see fit. Giano (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to BHG's points that Bishonen and I be added as involved parties. I'm afraid BHG would like to dilute this case as much as possible to detract attention from her own behaviour. Bishonen does not edit in that field and my edits can probably be counted on the fingers of both hands. Her statement is further proof of her beleif that anyone who challenges her authority is in need of sanction. A belief that has lead he to this sorry point in her Wiki-carreer. Her "playing the woman card" smacks of desperation, she has quite fealessly blocked 100s of men (presumably) twice her size - I'm afraid that does not wash at this belated stage. Giano (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed these amazing lines in Kittybrewster's statement below "by a shouting threatening thug who must...." This is describing Vintagekits! Vj may be hot headed, but from Kittybrewster this is stonecold statement. Who else would be alowed to describe another editor thus? and get away with it. As he is a baronet in RL, is he to be accorded special priviledges here too? Incivility, that favourite word of the community seems now to have been abandoned. Would someone please ask him to strike that statement and appologise? Giano (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[63] Not quite an appology - is it? Giano (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kittybrewster

I 100% endorse the statement by BHG. Vk has no positive constructive interest in Baronets; he was just seeking a fight as is shown by the threatening statements in his "countdown". I am not interested in getting sucked into stress and argument by someone who I experience as a shouting threatening thug who must always have the last word.

My actions. I saw Vk’s aggressive threatening countdown and realised Vk was donning his angry mastodon clothes again. I saw a number of pages were wrongly moved to his POV, and decided not to get involved with him. I posted a report on AN/I and with BHG and went on holiday; Since then I have logged in ooccasionally and noted more aggression and finger pointing by Vk. BHG has been terrific. I understand Vk thinks I have a COI with regard to Baronetcies; I agree I have a POV but I edit within policy. Tzankai and Vk are wrong in saying I have a COI. Perhaps I should not have thrown a biscuit to the chiwahwah when I reverted the renaming of Arbuthnot Lake which Vk wrongly and provocatively changed to Arbuthnet Lake.

The topic ban is a good idea for Vk but profoundly wrong for BHG and me. It worked well when Vk was topic banned for a year and discouraged from interacting with me. I believe his editing of boxing articles is fine.

I am unhappy with the way the community has addressed this because (1) Vk, BHG and I are intermuddled as if we have done the same unstated wrong at the same time; that is a breach of natural justice. (2) I have done nothing wrong. (3) BHG has done nothing wrong (4) the "temporary period" of topic ban is unspecified. (5) Tzankai should not have determined the issue, not being independant, (6) I have no COI on baronets (7) no solution is put forward to resolve the longterm problem that Vk is.

Finally I would like to be told what I should have done differently. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SirFozzie. That would please Vk but would leave BHG and me resentful and hobbled. It is unjust and unnecessary. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Giano: Your point being what?

Statement by Vintagekits

I'll try and be as honest as I can so lets get down to facts (as I see it).

1. I have an issue with Baronets (multiple issues) - I dont think that its a notable title, I seriously question how their articles are created, I think the sources used in there articles are little more than self-published sources and I disagree with the way their articles are titled.
2. There has been widespread abuse in naming of Baronets - wherever and whenever possibly Baronets were named with the title - e.g. Sir Questionable Notability, 3rd Baronet of AFD as opposed to simply Questionable Notability.
3. I decided to "right the wrong" and move them in accordance with Point 4 of the Naming conventions and the Peerage Project.
4. Kitty messeged BHG's talk page and ANI stating "I request that all today’s edits be reverted and that the articles ban / injunction be extended." - this is their true motive operandi - no mention of how to sort it out - just get him article banned. No one would touch articles they own!.
5. Kitty then fled and left the work to BHG as she is a admin and acts with impunity in this field. Without any attempt at discussion BHG went about a programme of mass reverts of my moves - against MOS.
6. I opened a number of discussions to sort the issue out such as here. BHG focused on past grievances, replying "you are back again making as much mischief as you can with baronets, moving articles without any consideration for the needs of disambiguation" - I attempted to avoid going down that road and focus on the issue but BHG continued to make it a personal battle. And then BHG went back remaning like this, this, this and this with edit summaries such as "revert aggressive and abusive move campaign".
7. After being asked by Spartaz I then opened a second discussion - seen here. She ignored this for over half an hour an continued her campaign of renaming such as this, this, this, this. Her reply to my discussion was that she wasnt interested in engaging with me. Clearly shown in this edit here and her edit summary - "Sorry, Jack, I appreciate your attempt to find a middle way, but it doesn't work when dealing with Vintagekits".
8. So I open a third discussion here in an attempt to sort it, BHG refuses to engage and now states At this point, I feel threatened and intimidated by you, yet again. Please stay off my talk page. Talk about holding the upper hand - so if I move pages I am being disruptive, if I try to discuss it I am initimidating her and if I dont like it she can block me!
9. At this point I felt like taking the bait but instead I waited a few hours and tried discussing it again - she deleted my comment without replying to it. So I left it there for the day and took on board what everyone had said - I thought the mass renaming was justified but maybe not the best way to go about it - the vast majority of the moves were correct but there are sure to be some mistakes in there as well. So I came back the next day and said to myself that I should be very selective in the articles that I move so that if there was any issues then it would be easier to discuss them. So I moved 3 articles - this, this, and this. Again without any discussion or engagement BHG agressively renamed them here - sighting per WP:NCNT.
10. So I opened a fourth discussion here - note at this point neither BHG or KB have opened a discussion with me or tried to engage in a meaningful discussion with regards this issue. With this move BHG was pulling two tricks a. moving without discussion and b. purposefully dropping his middle name which was commonly used throughout his life so that at disambiguation using the title "Sir" would have to be used. Looking at the article history and the discussion you can se exactly what happened and then I was blocked my BHG and she moved the article title back and "wins" the arguement - if only we all had these facist powers to ensure we were always right.
11. I actually agree with a lot of what Tznkai has said - maybe I cant edit in this area, possibly I am blinded with rage with the way those "on the other side" edit this which keeps me from editing this topic properly.
12. What would I have done different? I would have made a similar list to that that is on my talk page now and gone through them that way - but to be honest I didnt think there would have been this uproar.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot made of my countdown to the end of my topic ban as if it was a "threat" of some kind. It was nothing of the sort it was merely a bit of fun. Prior to my topic ban ending my block ended and I did the same last time and it was taken in the spirit that it was mean - and that was a fun! Thats what it was meant last time and that it was it was meant this time - as if it has any baring on this dispute anyway!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BHG refers to my "mass moving rampages with no checks" and "repeated disruption in this area" - more over emotional nonsense without concrete evidence. Facts not ficton please!

To that I say that all the pages I moved either had the correct and shorter form of the name as a redirect or a red link. The completely scuppers the disruption agruement. And further I was if it was mass renaming without checks how many pages did I move and how many of them does she have an issue with? Lets have some actual analysis from you instead of drama and hyperbole. --Vintagekits (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to BWilkins - BWlikins state that I broke the BRD cycle and did not discuss in a community minded manner. I feel the opposite is the truth. I opened the the initial discussion - I opened three other discussions and BHG openly stated that she did not wish to discuss the issue with me. Not sure what else I could have done TBH.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phoe

Actually not a statement, but rather a pointer, that the course of the current dispute, including the actions and arguments is more or less a copy of the dispute two years ago (see User_talk:Vintagekits/Archive_7). If the Committee accepts this case, then perhaps it could be helpful to consider the then occurrences also.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I had not intended to get more involved into this dispute, however the started motion below urge me to expand my statement: The move warring of Arbuthnot Lake [64], the nomination for deletion of an article User:Vintagekits had created by User:Kittybrewster [65], the resulting topic ban on boxing [66], the block on User:Kittybrewster [67], the generally behaviour of User:Vintagekits at ANI ~~and his missing acknowledgment of own mistakes~~, the possible desysoping and topic ban of an admin and devoted editor are points that in my eyes request now a more detailed investigation than a simple motion.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was spotlighted to point twelve of User:Vintagekits' statement, I have struck out my assertion and apologise to him.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Bwilkins

Let me state that I have no horse in this race, other than commentary in the ANI thread. As per my comments in that thread, we have a failure to deal with the WP:BRD cycle properly.

User VK was bold.
User BHG reverted.
User VK did not discuss in a community-minded manner.
BRD cycle broken, we all end up in WP:ANI.

The question becomes one of causation: Vintagekits is a long-term editor who should (one would think) know BRD like the back of their hand. Why not in this case? Past history with the user? An attempt to discredit them? A sense of WP:OWNership of a series of articles? A sudden desire to create WP:DRAMA? I don't know, and it may be difficult to find out, but it (IMHO) is the crux of this situation.

Again, IMHO, stronger action may need to be taken if the question cannot be readily answered, so as to protect other editors, morale, the articles, and Wikipedia as a whole. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Vintagekits: Where is the "community-minded discussion" when you engage a single editor on their talkpage, rather than discussing on the article talkpage? BRD needs to involve as many people in the Discussion as possible, not merely target the person who Reverted, as that can be readily taken in a different manner. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved rootology

I'd posted an alternate idea here of how to get around this mess by skipping arbitration, but it appears that some people feel that VK & KB are too, I suppose, hateful of each other at this point for it to work. It's this proposal, that I drafted for an alternate DR idea. rootology (C)(T) 17:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by semi-involved Mangojuice

I urge Arbcom to accept this case; it's a behavioral issue and not a content issue. My involvement has been limited to the following: I removed BrownHairedGirl's block on Vintagekits and reblocked him myself; it was apparent to me he was revert-warring page moves, immediately after his community ban expired. The block was later lifted by AdjustShift against consensus, but I hope his action will just be taken as an honest if careless mistake by an inexperienced admin (I believe he has learned from this, based on private communications). I also imposed a block on Kittybrewster after a retaliatory AFD and some incivil comments about VintageKits; Kittybrewster was also continuing to edit Baronet articles in defiance of a topic ban imposed on her by Tznkai; he had rejected that ban but it had substantial support.

I feel that, as with other naming issues, it hardly matters how things are actually done, but it's important that it not be a source of edit warring, drama, or disruption. Vintagekits started this latest round of warring, but I think it's important to realize that, while his attempts at discussion were not ideal, he did attempt discussion and has points based on the style guideline, and has been met with strong resistance. The proposed remedy to ban VK and KB from Baronet articles is a good temporary injunction but not necessarily a good solution, because while the community is sick of the situation I am not convinced everyone has a complete picture of the actual misdeeds of each party. This is the kind of thing ArbCom is ideally suited to handle. Mango juice^talk 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Erik9

Administrators are strongly advised to refrain from both reverting disruptive edits and blocking the disruptive editor, as doing so may give the impression of taking administrative action against a party with whom the administrator is engaged in a content dispute, thereby creating the appearance of impropriety, which may be vigorously exploited by the disruptive editor to cause further trouble, both by further edits on Wikipedia, and by postings on Wikipedia Review. Nonetheless, to desysop an administrator because of one sub-optimal action, without any prior dispute resolution, and by motion, without even opening a case, is appallingly excessive and draconian. We would have few sysops remaining if a majority of the committee were to adopt the proffered approach to the discipline of administrators. Erik9 (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to FloNight's statement "During the ongoing discussions, BHG has not shown me that she understand that her actions were a key factor in this dispute escalating."[68], it's an inherent trend in human nature to defend the propriety of one's actions when challenged in an adversarial proceeding such as an arbitration request. That BrownHairedGirl has done this in her statement does not imply that she has seen no room for improvement in how she responds to future instances of disruptive editing, nor that a summary desysopping for a single administrative action would be justified. Erik9 (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Reminder that statements should be as close to 500 words or less as possible. Tiptoety ^talk 02:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/1/3/3)

Recuse. Risker (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, from the looks of it this definitely needs addressing. Wizardman 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as framed by Tznkai, to examine the behavior of the four listed parties only. The other individuals involved in the later discussion are indeed ancillary to the core dispute, and nothing productive will come of expanding the scope to include them. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 06:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the proposal by SirFozzie looks like a simple way for everyone to have more fun, warm dinners and sleep.
Can the affected parties please indicate how they would feel about this resolution? As a possible alternative, due to the valued contributions that might otherwise be lost, is it feasible to permit these two editors a little room to move in this topical area? e.g. creating stubs, working on articles in their userspace without interruption by each other, and/or being allowed to work in mainspace on a few articles in this topical area subject to approval by one or two admins familiar with the likely problems. i.e. can they write articles and then disengage as the community takes over, or will they be unable to restrain themselves ? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BrownHairedGirl, are you recommending that we restrict only these users from moving articles on baronets, or a more broad restriction to also include newcomers? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kittybrewster, how do you feel about the suggestion that the people involved in this be restricted from moving page? A comment on the general idea will suffice, but if you think it would work some specifics would be useful. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After my daily dose of drama, it seems clear that the community solution of a topic banning on Vintagekits and Kittybrewster is roundly supported, but is having difficulty being implemented in a way that sticks. As a result, I have proposed a motion below to topic ban them both for a year, and force them to use WP:RM in the problematic area after the year has elapsed. Good edits will be lost, but we will save two good editors. I've also looked at BrownHairedGirl's contributions, and it seems clear that with these two topic banned, she will gain time and energy to make up for their missing contributions in this topical area. If her involvement needs to be reviewed, is best tackled in the RfC which Vintagekits is drafting. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept circumscription per Kirill - Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. We should not step in where the community is already handling the situation. I see no compelling reason to interfere with the commununity's chosen method of minimizing the disruption and drama. I fail to see what necessary purpose would be served by opening a case at this juncture. Any remaining "open" points are still well within reach of the community to resolve and I see no reason to presume that the community cannot resolve them. I would support, at most, affirming and complimenting the community resolution by way of motion per SirFozzie's suggestion. --Vassyana (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll be willing to accept this case and lean toward SirFozzie's suggestion if the community fails to arrive to a resolution. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering if putting the case on hold while the Community discusses further might be useful. A binding Community decision that the Committee then votes to approve may be the fastest and best way to get resolution to the situation. I can see the usefulness of a motion voted on by the Committee as some insurance that the remedy is enforceable by uninvolved admins. Most of the work has been done, but I think more comment and tweaking of the wording might help make this stick. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to hold to see if the motions pass. The involved users have made statements and discussed the evidence with the Community and ArbCom giving us a clear picture of the situation. The Community understands the situation and has offered various remedies but none has reached consensus by the Community that it will work. The Community has returned to ArbCom to find a binding solution. So ArbCom needs to vote on motions to make it clear that they are enforceable by uninvolved admins. If the motions do not pass, then I will vote to open the case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse due to prior involvement in this area. I encourage acceptance of the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per the other accepts. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. Would like to note in passing that this is the fourth naming dispute to be before ArbCom in recent months ("Ireland article names", "West Bank - Judea and Samaria", and "Macedonia 2" are the other three). Unlike the other cases, this is over names of articles about people, not places, and it also doesn't involve a real-world dispute. So I find myself asking what is the underlying cause of this dispute? A real-world naming dispute, or Wikipedia editors unable to work together to agree on something to end a dispute over interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, enabling them to move on? I suspect the latter, so would urge acceptance of the case and a swift resolution. Some general thoughts: in my reading of Wikipedia articles on scientists, I often encounter articles named either way (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and while I might question this in some cases, move-warring is never the answer. Moving a page only changes its title - most readers are more interested in the actual content of the article, not what title it is at. Move-warring is like dancing on the head of a pin. Would also urge that the following pages be looked at closely with regards to this request: 1, 2, 3. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hold~~ for another couple of days per FloNight. During this time, commenters are asked to update their statements (if they have not already done so) regarding whether community discussion is adequately addressing the issues. If community measures do not quickly resolve the dispute, I will vote to accept (in which case all evidence should be presented within one week, the case should be decided promptly thereafter). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per recent developments, this isn't getting any better, so accept and let's open the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept with Kirill's limitations and per Flo's proposal. Roger Davies ^talk 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Discuss

Vintagekits and Kittybrewster topic banned

1) Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are topic banned from Baronets and Knights articles, broadly interpreted, including talk pages, for one year, and indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights broadly interpreted.

Support

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits was given a final warning last year in an AE case. I added talk pages to the motion. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with adding talk pages; that is clearly necessary and worth stating explicitly. If they continue this elsewhere, an additional "no interaction" motion may also be necessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bainer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 02:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I would support this as a temporary injunction if we open the case, or I could support a more nuanced version of this by motion in lieu of the case, but as a final remedy by motion it is too broad as presently written. For example, I do not presently see reason to support banning Kittybrewster from editing any article, even a non-controversial one, about anyone who might just happen to hold a knighthood. I fully agree, however, with the restriction on pagemoves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is revolves mainly around moves. I disagree with Newyorkbrad that a case is needed here; we've had all elements in front of us. A motion that would take a few days max to get in place can achieve the same results as a with case taking a few weeks or more. I've added an alternative motion below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

BrownHairedGirl

1) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). BrownHairedGirl is banned from Baronets and Knights articles, broadly interpreted, including talk pages, for one year.

Support

First choice. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I would prefer to open the case (although I could support a narrowly tailored temporary injunction during the case, or during an RfC if preferred). The topic ban in the last sentence is not well-supported, certainly not in its current breadth, and would seriously damage Brown Haired Girl's ability to edit in one of her primary content fields (MP articles; many MPs hold or have held knighthoods or baronetcies). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A ban from Baronets and Knights articles is not supported by the elements on hand. I disagree with Newyorkbrad that a case is needed here; we've had all elements in front of us. A motion that would take a few days max to get in place can achieve the same results as with a case taking a few weeks or more. I've added an alternative motion below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

I am not keen on such a long topic ban. I would prefer an indefinite ban on renaming these articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2) BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is desysopped. She may apply to have her administrative privileges reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. BrownHairedGirl is banned from Baronets and Knights articles, broadly interpreted, including talk pages, for one year.

Support

Second choice. --bainer (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Using admin tools against an editor who you are in a content dispute is a rather large abusive use of admin tools. During the ongoing discussions, BHG has not shown me that she understands that her actions were a key factor in this dispute escalating. Loss of tool now with the ability to seek them again through a RFA is the best way to gauge if she still has the community trust to use the tools. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I would prefer to open the case (although I could support an appropriately tailored temporary injunction within the case, or pending an RfC if preferred). More generally, desysopping by motion without a case should be reserved for extreme circumstances. Also, as above, the broad topic-ban in the last sentence would seriously damage Brown Haired Girl's ability to edit in one of her major content areas (MP articles) for little reason. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All these users had the opportunity to find a more nuanced solution, but instead they chose to escalate the dispute. I don't think that banning KB and VK from the articles and allowing BHG to edit them is going to resolve the dispute. I prefer to give the topic ban and review it later if she does not contribute to further conflicts related to the topic. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admonished, yes. Desysopped, no. She did report the block and was open to the idea of 'anyone could revert her block'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The damage was done by the time she made the report. My view is that she poisoned the well against VK by exaggerating the situation in her report. It was heavily slanted toward her pov. And she annoyed VK by doing the block and made it near impossible for another admin to wade into the situation without getting a heated response from VK. This reaction by VK was 100% predictable since he had been block by someone in an editing dispute with him. There was no reason for a block. VK wanted discussion about the situation, but BHG blew him off when he tried to discuss it. Instead of blocking she needed to ask another experienced admin or editor to mediate the situation. I will never accept that blocking first and then getting approval is appropriate when an admin is in a dispute with an user. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can only support desysopping if there's a trend and/or when an admin can't or doesn't show signs that they would desist. I don't see any of that here. Admonishment coupled with a restriction is sufficient to prevent any repeated and similar behavior. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Again, the long topic ban concerns me. And I think an RFC would be more productive. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are indefinitely restricted from moving pages relating to Baronets and Knights broadly interpreted. BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished not to use administrative tools to further her own position in a dispute. BrownHairedGirl is prohibited indefinitely from taking any administrative action against or in connection with Vintagekits.

Support

Per my comments above. And any further troubles would lead to a topic ban or worse. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this can be a good meld of the above motions. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. I think that a topic ban on Vintagekits and Kittybrewster would be more helpful, but this will address the problem at hand. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Can't support anything under a topic ban from a preliminary look, though I want to support since this is the closest to what i'd prefer so far. Wizardman 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Will vote for it as a second choice if an enforcement is added to it. The reason that we need to get involved is make the sanction clearly enforceable by uninvolved admins. While I prefer for BHG to go through another RFA (so a desysop) and the topic bans for all involved users, I will agree to give this a chance to work if an enforcement is added. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. That sounds reasonable. Any particular wording? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue that needs to be addressed. I think we need to acknowledge the community sanctions and say if they are still in force. Part of what made this need to come to arbcom was that several ideas were being floated and none had enough support to stick and be enforced by uninvolved admins, imo. The usual enforcement by block that we use for the page more bans. If we are adding the KB boxing topic ban then that would be enforced by a block as well. We could make a temp desysop be part of the remedy for using the tools against VK once ArbCom is notified. Does any of that work for you? FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out by Xeno, that ANI section was currently 201 kb, nearly 40% of the ANI by yesterday. Kittybrewster didn't recognize the topic ban which is really alarming and much alarming was his nomination of a boxing article Vintagekits had created. Anyway, it seems that ArbCom must act here since ANI hasn't reached much of a real solution and there are little chances that any real resolution would be reached soon (we won't allow the ANI section to reach 50%).

That said, I also believe that we at least should refer to the interactions between Kb and Vk here and restrict them from nominating articles of eachother (eventhough Vk is innocent in this instance). Probably an admonishment of Kb is needed here (for both his pointy nomination and disrespect of the community restriction). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|Requests for arbitration|[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case|Requests for arbitration]]}} ==
 {{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header}}
+=== {Insert the case name} ===
+'''Initiated by {Yourusername}''' {timestamp}}
+==== Involved parties ====
+<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
+*{{userlinks|yourusername}}, ''filing party''
+*{{userlinks|username2}}
+<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->
+;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
+<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
+*Diff. 1
+*Diff. 2
+;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
+<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
+*Link 1
+*Link 2
+==== Statement by {Party 1} ====
+==== Statement by {Party 2} ====
+==== Clerk notes ====
+:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
+==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
+*
+----
 === Mattisse ===