Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight		20 September 2009	{{{votes}}}
Dr90s BLP-POV violations, incivility, sockpuppetry		17 September 2009	{{{votes}}}
<Insert the case name>		22 September 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 07:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of Law
• Notification of ChildofMidnight

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

This is a divisive dispute between admins; previous discussion is found at

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ChildofMidnight
• User talk:Sandstein#Child of Midnight

Statement by Sandstein

By a motion of 29 August 2009 modifying Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#Remedies, ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was "topic-banned from Obama-related articles for six months, and any related discussions, broadly construed across all namespaces". He and Wikidemon (talk · contribs) had already been ordered "not to interact with each other" on 21 June 2009.

Today, Wikidemon submitted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#ChildofMidnight. I usually patrol WP:AE, and after reading the evidence in the request and ChildofMidnight's reply, I blocked ChildofMidnight for a month, both for his repeated violation of the topic ban and for his violation of the interaction remedy through his reply. (It was later pointed out to me that I misread the remedy and that the maximum block length should have been a week; apologies for this.)

ChildofMidnight submitted an unblock request (including [1], [2]) that in my experience would normally not have been accepted based on its incivil language alone. At 03:51, 20 September 2009, Law (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an administrator, informed me that he would unblock ChildofMidnight, and without either waiting for my reply or engaging in any community discussion he unblocked ChildofMidnight at 04:15. He later declined to reinstate the block (at its proper length of one week), which leads me to request arbitration (instead of wheelwarring, of course).

A very brief review of Law's contributions indicates that he and ChildofMidnight have recently interacted in a quite familiar manner ([3], [4] [5], [6]). This, as well as the remarkably short time (24 minutes) between the unblock request and Law's reaction, may be an indication that Law might not have been acting as a neutral, uninvolved administrator in the processing of ChildofMidnight's unblock request.

By unilaterally undoing a block that was clearly labeled as an arbitration enforcement action, as well as more generally by undoing a block by a fellow admin without consulting anybody, Law has acted in a manner unbecoming an administrator and I ask the Committee to take the steps required to ensure that its decisions can be effectively enforced in the future. Should the Committee decline to do so, I regret to say that I will no longer undertake any arbitration enforcement tasks, because that would then be an exercise in futility.  Sandstein  07:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Law

So far, all of Law's comments in this matter ignore that my block was explicitly not only for ChildofMidnight's violation of the topic ban (for about the third time), but equally for his violation of the restriction against interaction with Wikidemon that his offtopic ad-hominem tirade constituted. Also, Law misstates my request. I do not consider AE futile if I do not get my way (about whether the topic ban was violated; I'll of course accept any consensual determination of that issue), but I do consider it futile if it becomes accepted practice to unilaterally undo arbitration enforcement actions without discussion.  Sandstein  09:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Should the Committee decline to do so, I regret to say that I will no longer undertake any arbitration enforcement tasks, because that would then be an exercise in futility. That is the equivalent of taking your ball and going home. There is not other way to interpret this remark. If you take an issue as far as ARBCOM, you need to be prepared that you may not have been in the right here and it has nothing to do with an ARBCOM decision. I will engage you no further. You clearly do not see that I await a decision, respect that decision, and whichever way the wind flows, I will abide. I suggest you do the same. Law _{type! snype?} 09:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ched

I think it is fallacious to assume that an article is only related to Barack Obama if it is mentioned in the presumably comprehensive article about him. Per WP:SS, much relevant material will be only mentioned in the subarticles (if at all). For instance, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, while undoubtedly related to Obama, are not mentioned at all in the article about him. At any rate, ACORN#ACORN in political discourse, which mentions Obama multiple times, explains why the organization is politically relevant to him and certainly falls into a broadly construed topic ban concerning him.  Sandstein  09:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding the statement by ChildOfMidnight

ChildOfMidnight has made a statement of sorts at User talk:ChildofMidnight#Arbitration request (permalink, my attempt to copy it to this page was reverted). The one part in the statement that merits comment is ChildOfMidnight's reference to the article Contempt of cop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I started in July (most probably marking the first time that I started an article about the U.S.). ChildOfMidnight made several changes to the article, apparently ascribing some political motivation to my version of it (while, in fact, being Swiss, I have not much of an opinion about most aspects of US politics). His changes have, as far as I can tell, by now been undone, mostly by other editors. Up until this evening I had forgotten both about the article and the fact that he, too, had edited it. Even now, on reflection, I do not believe that this no-longer-current content disagreement in a different topic area makes me involved with respect to him, though I will of course respect any other determination by the Committee.  Sandstein  19:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued unbecoming conduct by Law

Since Law lifted his block, ChildOfMidnight has made various statements on his user talk page that violate most of our user conduct policies ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). Instead of reacting to this in a manner compatible with his assumed role of neutral administrator, Law left a light-hearted comment on ChildOfMidnight's talk page ([12]), which makes fun of the arbitration remedy I attempted to enforce, has the effect of validating ChildOfMidnight's violation of the remedy and other norms of conduct, and reinforces my impression that Law's administrator actions in this matter are not based in a good faith disagreement over whether or not my enforcement action was correct.  Sandstein  08:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a comment in relation to Bongomatic's 'block notice.' It had nothing to do with CoM's comments. Am I poking fun at how you blatantly blocked the user for a time period that was against policy? No. Am I making light of the fact that I disagree with the Arbs below - none of which said the time was problematic? Yes. You seem to be confused. I don't disagree with the topic ban - I disagree that it was correctly applied in this case. I also used a little levity to de-escalate the situation, which you seem quite intent on bringing to full climax. Law _{type! snype?} 08:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

This is not nearly ripe enough for arbitration yet, but if it gets there, I hope it ends with someone whacking me upside the head for trying to put out this fire.--Tznkai (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite my best efforts, Law and Sandstein seem committed to arbitration. I remind ArbCom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Motion to clarify the interpretative role of administrators, and of WP:AERFC which had, among other things, many comments about how AE is understaffed and a flawed process. As I am now pretty much done with trying to put out the fire, I just like to note that administrators need to avoid having pissing contests. In fact, they need to do more than that, they need to actively work together or the entire effort is pointless. I am not sure yet what ArbCom can do about getting that to happen, if anything, but I think it is at the core of the dispute here - not any of the red herrings listed.--Tznkai (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Law

I believe I am uninvolved by virtue of the fact that I have never dealt with CoM as it pertains to his editing restrictions. I do not see how 'uninvolved' means that I am not allowed any interaction with the editor. If this were true, I would have little to offer as far as administrative actions as I have several editors with which I have interacted.

Editors are the ones who add and build articles. So I do not interpret the topic ban to mean that if editor or IP X inserts Obama's name to article X, that CoM is systematically obligated to stay away from that article. As I mentioned, it is no secret that Obama recently referred to Kanye West as a 'jackass.' However, I do not feel that CoM should be restricted from improving the Kanye article.

Editing Michelle Obama is problematic. Editing Kayne West is not. ACORN was incorporated nearly 40 years before the highest profile person in the world was voted into office. It is only by virtue of the fact that Obama is the US President, that one could possibly perceive that this article should be off limits to said editor. I refuse to believe that ARBCOM intended that any mention of the President of the United States in any capacity, in any article, automatically merits a block. The ban was intended to prevent CoM from editing Obama-related articles. I do not think that ACORN is an Obama-related article simply because information was added to the article that mentions the standing President.

Sandstein's assertion that if things do not go his way he will consider ARBCOM an exercise in futility is also very disconcerting. I'm clearly willing to abide by any decision is made - I just feel that until that decision is made, the user should remain unblocked.

Statement by SirFozzie

In general, it's long standing "law" that a topic ban is meant to prevent someone from editing in a topic area where there's an issue with that person's editing. In other words, it's what they're editing about that's the issue, not the name of the article.

Looking at the edits referred to on AE, on the article of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. This is a highly charged subject, where attacks on one could meant as an indirect attack on someone else (IE, casting ACORN in bad light, hoping that the bad light will reflect badly on Barack Obama). So, while it's borderline, I would be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to CoM, and thus consider the edits to be NOT a violation of the topic ban.

However, I'd like to note with concern this edit, amongst others mentioned on the AE thread which indicates that CoM is treating WP and these articles as a battleground. Obviously, the lesson has not been learned here, and if not corrected in the near future by CoM, I would recommend that the existing topic ban be expanded to include all political related articles.

As for the unblock by User:Law.. while, as I've said that I'd be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to CoM with regards to this, I do not think Law's actions were warranted and/or helpful in this area. Unilaterally undoing another administrator's action without discussion or consultation does nothing to help an already heated enviroment. It was in a grey area, and Law should have discussed it with others on AE or elsewhere before undoing Sandstein's actions. Perhaps it's time to take a look at the perennial proposal of changing the definition of WP:WHEEL from the current: DO/UNDO/REDO (where it's the third action) to a more realistic and simple "Undoing another administrator's action without discussion and/or consultation." SirFozzie (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

After seeing further statements and CoM's on words, I am no longer willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Good block, and I urge ArbCom to not only ratify the block placed by Sandstein (the one week one, not the initial month), but urge them to place a political topic ban on CoM. I stand by my thoughts that Law's action was neither warranted or helpful. SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Ched Davis

I request permission to make a comment in regards to this matter. Without prejudice to any party involved, as I do have the utmost respect for all editors mentioned here, I would like to address the issue of the "topic ban". I believe that the Obama related articles (broadly construed) needs to considered in any decisions made in this particular case, and would like to ask that the committee consider a couple points.

1. That the Barack Obama article is a Featured Article
2. Criteria for a featured article 1 (b) states:

   (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

3. In doing a search through the Barack Obama article, I was unable to find either the term "ACORN", or "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now" listed anywhere in the article.

I truly believe that consideration should be given to these facts. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein

Thank you for both the reply and the links. I must confess that even though I've been active in the US Political area since the Jimmy Carter era (IIRC the 1976 election, although it's possible that the 1980 election was my first), I am very ignorant of much in the Wikipedia area of politics. I am even more ignorant of ArbCom procedure, and intent. As such, I often struggle with the concept of Wikipedia:Assume clue vs. Wikipedia:Assume no clue. When confronted with these conundrums, I attempt to WP:AGF, and trust that all parties involved are here to improve the WP project. I am aware that CoM has been involved in some contentious topics and threads, but I believe that any editor frequenting these difficult areas (US Politics) will often become a high profile editor who's actions are under extreme scrutiny. I have noticed that while CoM does have a block log, that many of the items are adjustments, retractions, or modifications to the original blocks. This indicates to me that perhaps there are misunderstandings and over-reactions to editors who frequent the US Political venues. I know that when editors are brought before any type of judgmental venue, such as AN, ANI, or ArbCom, that often the final declarations can be harsh. I believe that the root of the problem is the deep political divide between the US political right (conservative), and the US political left (liberal), and I can not fathom a simple solution to such an expansive problem. I think it is very unfortunate when administrators find themselves at such odds with one another, as it sets a bad example for the rest of the community. By construct, administrators should have within their wherewithal to resolve the inevitable disagreements peacefully, rationally, amicably, and without rancor. My original comment was merely an attempt to point out that while one person may interpret an ArbCom sanction in one fashion, I believe that it's entirely feasible that another person may interpret the exact same wording in a completely different manner. It's my opinion that when this happens, we better serve the project and the community by limiting our sanctions to the least restrictive options; at least until the matter(s) have been discussed, and some sort of consensus has been reached. I thank the committee for it's time and use of their page(s), and I wish all the very best. — Ched :  ?  11:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

I am curious, and want to make sure that I understand the actual details on this; is this the edit that drew a month long block? — Ched :  ?  19:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by MickMacNee

To Ched: You will not find a single mention of the birther controversy article in the text of the Obama article either, which nullifies that analysis. MickMacNee (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

This type of request does not surprise me as parties can say and do things hastily in the heat of the moment. However, though it may be humanly impossible for some parties to work together, I have no doubts that these 2 can work well together. In such circumstances, it is definitely not pleasant to see two such constructive established users (administrators in this case) listed as two opposing parties in a RfArb which could be so easily resolved outside of arbitration-pages - if both parties were ready to give a little more and take a little more. I think a case or motion will lead them astray and simply exacerbate the core problem. They both need to be led to the right path. Perhaps a more useful outcome would arise if even a couple of arbitrators talked to them informally so that they come to an understanding.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As for ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon, I think adopting Carcharoth's proposal would be useful for that issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any responses to Lara's point below...even ignoring typical community practice, the block itself did not comply with the enforcement provision which was imposed by the same ArbCom who are nodding their heads now. It's a worry that about half of ChildofMidnight's block log consists of actions that are problematic or unjustified in some way or another; and perhaps the worst part is that it looks like the beginning of a horrible trend. Instead of acknowledging this problem after looking at everything properly, you'll continue to nod your heads? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to Vassyana

• Sandstein's apology mooted part of my concern in that he partially took responsibility for his error. But the value of any 1 administrator's apology is not great enough to remedy the harm done to CoM's block log (which looks more and more like a train wreck with time) - by this I mean the sheer accumulated number of admin actions which are problematic, unjustified or similar, that have been recorded in CoM's block log. In such circumstances, it's not difficult to understand why a person in CoM's shoes would develop and express such strong views against groups of users (be it administrators, arbitrators, or otherwise) - this leads to further problems.
• What is lacking here is a remedy to that issue; at minimum, the community or ArbCom acknowledging this problem, so that more care is taken when actions are made with respect to CoM. Would Law have acted in the same way he did if Sandstein did not add to this growing problem? Has Law learnt from it? Sandstein's mistake may have been easier to fix in some other case, but would Sandstein have responded in the same way (inc. by filing this request) if he truly appreciated the harm that was caused by his mistake in this case? Or would he have been more ready to settle this through other means? Has Sandstein learnt from it? Contributing to another editor's bad perceptions does not help any situation, even if it is done unconsciously, and some users are not giving this enough thought.
• If there is to be any chance of resolving this dispute without drawing further battle-lines amongst other editors (or admins), more weight needs to be given to these considerations - all arbitrators nodding on any one side will not help. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Tarc

• Certainly didn't expect to see this in RFAR this morning. IMO these wiki-restraining orders are a bad idea and a hassle to enforce, but if we're going to stick with them as an enforceable remedy, then allowances must be made for one party to seek redress when the other violates it, just like their real-life counterpart. IRL, the victim doesn't wait for the cops to drive by and happen to see the violator in the front yard. Assigning admins to speak for them seems like a bureaucratic nightmare and just adds another layer of mess to go through, and I've never like the idea of off-wiki discussion of on-wiki issues; all of this should be as transparent as can be. Neither parties should be sanctioned under the "no contact" for filing and responding to the filing, respectively. Yes, I feel CoM was entitled to a response, but the response itself is problematic (accusations of stalking/harassment, name-dropping me, general tirade against The Man Keeping Him Down).

• The unblock by Law was questionable, to put it mildly. An admin motivated enough to unretire to take care of a blocked user that he has past friendly relations with (linked in Sandstein's section), to override another admin's interpretation of an ArbCom sanction, and to unblock when the unblock request and follow-up are laced with invective, personal attacks, and the usual "everyone's fault but mine" shtick? That just doesn't add up, along with the fact that this is now about the 4th or 5th time CoM has violated the ArbCom restrictions.

• Finally, no one has said that any article that mentions Obama by name is under the ArbCom restriction; I'd really like to see this canard put to rest, as even admins seem to be using it with abandon. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• PS: Interesting to see admins adding fuel to the idea that editing sanctions are a source of ridicule. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I think that a block over editing the ACORN article is reidiculous. Right now every law and bill will be slightly Obama related. Christ he's our President. I think the limits need to be defined as to what is exactly Obama related. I personally think both admin were acting from good faith. I do not think that a block should come out of the ACORN edits. At most if consensus is such that it is a prohibited area Tell COM. Just because he is in Arbcom doesn't mean it excuses us from assuming good faith, it does make out rope a little shorter but there was something everyone saw in COM or he would've been banned not subject restricted. A clear and definitive definition of what's allowed will prevent such misunderstandings. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I am not an admin, and have followed the large collection of ArbCom rulings against CoM only vaguely. I have encountered CoM's disruptive editing practices in several places, including recently ACORN which prompted this, so am concerned about the unblock.

Law's ill-conceived unblock has the extremely harmful effect of trivializing ArbCom rulings. Moreover, we are now in the awkward situation of giving CoM a "free pass" on any bad behavior for the near future. If CoM engages in contentious edit warring, belligerent comments, or other violations that have frequently characterized his editing, no admin can block him without engaging in wheel warring. Emboldening disruption is a really bad idea, all the more so for an editor with many preexisting sanctions.

The only right thing here would be if Law would voluntarily reinstate the CoM block, though for the one week given in prior ArbCom rulings, rather than the one month that Sandstein has recognized as a misreading. Unfortunately, it appears Law has become more engaged in vindicating his position out of ego than in promoting the clear operation of arbitration rulings. LotLE×talk 17:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

A few short points, back with more later:

1. Stating that Obama is related to ACORN only by virtue of his presidency is so far from the facts on the ground as to almost be deceptive. More evidence from some reliable sources on that later (I won't belabor the point but this is decidedly not like editing Skip Gates's article, it is much more closely connected)
2. AE is chronically understaffed partially because it is thankless complicated work (I'll note here that I don't have a single edit to AE and promised myself that I would steer clear of most permanently arbitrated disputes like Eastern Europe, Ireland, US Left-Right politics, etc.). But it is also understaffed because stuff like this happens all the time. One admin undertakes an Arb. Enforcement only to find his action reversed rendering the entire process moot. If Sandstein wanted to re-block CoM he would have to go to AN or AN/I and get a consensus there that the unblock was wrong, bringing back all the problems which brought the case to arbitration in the first place. Bringing enforcement of an action to the community where the enforcement itself is only in place because the community can't litigate the debate is nuts.
3. This is yet another example of the implicit problem generated by WHEEL's prohibition of the "third action". A second mover advantage is generated. The admin with real power here is the unblocking admin because it is their action which is irrevocable, not the first admin's. I'm not arguing that either admin's actions should be totally immovable or transient but there shouldn't be a big imbalance between the two. Both the blocking admin and the unblocking admin should be forced to think about their actions in light of possible consequences.

Some supporting evidence to come, probably tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Xenophrenic

On the question of "is ACORN broadly construed as an Obama-related article?", there is a relevant bit of information overlooked by some administrators. CoM's first edit on the ACORN talk page since his topic ban makes clear that his interest lies with just one specific part of the article: ACORN is a partisan organization. It's simply innacurate to state otherwise. They have parts that are non-partisan so as to be compliant with funding requirements, but other segments are very active politically and in endorsing and campaigning for Democratic candidates. ACORN has endorsed only one presidential candidate, Barack Obama, and ChildofMidnight argues that makes ACORN partisan. While Admin Law argues that the relationship between Obama and ACORN is minimal, it is precisely that relationship, IMO, however significant, CoM targeted with his edits. If Law's only justification for lifting the block is that the topic ban doesn't cover edits to the ACORN article, I believe Law was in error. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe even CoM considers ACORN to be related to the Obama articles. In response to an editor on the ACORN talk page loudly proclaiming that the ACORN article was biased, and guarded by like-minded biased editors, CoM responded here:

"Censorship is quite common on Wikipedia. A pack of partisans hangs out on the Obama articles and related subjects and tries to keep out all notable dissent. It's pretty saddening and there's an Arbcom proceeding dealing with it. Believe it or not they're siding with those violating the wp:NPOV guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Did CoM just infer that the ACORN article was a related subject, or am I misreading? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wikidemon

This is in answer to answer Carcharoth's request[13] to weigh in on the proposal that any petition by me relating to ChildofMidnight be either emailed to the committee or conveyed by an administrator-advocate. This is not directed to the propriety of ChildofMidnight's block, or subsequent unblock.

ArbCom is my first and last stop to resolve problems with CoM, because every other venue is precluded by our mutual no-interaction rule. I have filed four requests to date, two for clarification and two for enforcement. Diffs are in the collapsed section, below.

please review these diffs if you want to understand the nature of my participation here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I filed a first request for clarification 26 June 2009, asking if these edits[14][15][16][17] were okay. Arbitrators opined: "...any further (even mildly) negative ad hominem comments or niggly/baiting/whatever that occur could be at best described as disruptive and a significant block would be in order."[18] and "No. It is not acceptable".[19] Three more arbs concurred, none disagreed. This was not recorded as a formal ruling. Sceptre filed a first request for amendment 9 July 2009, seeking for various 1RR restrctions to be limited to Obama-related articles. I commented only briefly. The proposal was approved 6-1-0-3. Bigtimepeace filed a second request for clarification 5 August 2009, inquiring about the timing of topic bans. I asked a related question. There was some discussion among arbitrators but no motion or ruling. I filed a third request for clarification (deleted without archiving)[20] on 8 August 2009 after CoM intervened in an AN/I thread where I was participating to co criticize the community's attempt to cope with William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was edit warring and making accusations at the Obama article[21][22][23][24] and egged him on at his own talk page.[[25]] There were other sanction violations that affected me less directly.[26][27][28][29][30] I had been participating on the article page and at AN/I but to avoid interacting with CoM I closed down my part of a thread when he appeared.[31] I asked ArbCom to clarify three questions: (parahrased for brevity) may interaction-banned editors criticize each other, participate in meta-matters related to the others' edits, or accuse a group of editors that includes the other of bad faith; and may topic-banned editors participate in meta-discussion of the prohibited content or article edits, or AfDs of topic-banned articles? CoM was blocked briefly, then unblocked, and ArbCom reworded the topic ban by 6-0-0-1 motion to include all namespaces. I responded to Grundle2600's [request for clarification] of the reworded topic ban, to argue that user talk pages should remain within the ban. Shortly thereafter CoM posted picture of Hitler on his talk page, with captions and commentary comparing began comparing Obama editors / case participants to Nazis.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] I filed a first request for enforcement over the Nazi content after Risker seemed to say that is where the matter belonged.[49] by User:Risker. I said I would file the request and, with no response, I did so eight hours later. Questions were raised by some, but never clarified by Arbcom, whether it was appropriate for me to comment on CoM before ArbCom. The outcome was stern warnings from administrators to remove the Nazi material, after which CoM did so and the matter became moot.

Is there a bad problem problem that can be resolved by placing an intermediary between me and ArbCom?

As a premise, if CoM is engaging in ArbCom sanction violations via (a) blockable conduct that (b) impairs my ability to edit articles, he should stop. Also: if (c) the behavior continues and nobody is dealing with it after a reasonable time, I should have some forum to request help. If anyone disagrees and thinks my work should be stymied or all recourse denied, let them say so. I followed that reasoning in each report:

(a) disruptive conduct - Only when behavior causes real trouble is it worth dealing with. Accidents, missteps, good work, and pleasant civil behavior, are not worth worrying about. Each of my requests concerned conduct disruptive enough to be blockable. In order: (1) badmouthing me and other editors by name across the encyclopedia by calling us vandals, trolls, POV pushers, etc., (ii) inciting a difficult editor at AN/I to edit war the Obama page, (iii) hosting Nazi imagery by way of likening me and other editors to Hitler, and (iv) accusations of bad faith at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now‎ (ACORN). In the first and third cases, CoM was warned by administrators or arbitrators that he would be blocked if he continued, and he eventually backed down. In the second and fourth cases, he was blocked.

(b) impairs my editing - I take no interest in ChildofMidnight's editing except where it affects me. In each case it affected my ability to edit the encyclopedia. Again in order he: (i) besmirched my name, (ii) scuttled my attempts to work with an editor and left his fingerprints on an AN/I thread I started, so I had to withdraw my comments and flee, (iii) made me the target of hate speech, and (iv) spoiled an accord I was proposing at ACORN, and made me back off my edits there.

(c) not yet reported - It's simpler if someone else happens to notice and deal with CoM. That does not always happen.

So far so good. But each request brought a fresh round of accusations from CoM, and both blocks were quickly overturned, leading to administrator disputes. For the accusations, ChildofMidnight calls me things like POV-pusher, troll, vandal, disruptive editor, policy violator, Nazi, thug, bully, liar, stalker, censor, harasser, abuser, obscene, disgusting, disgraceful, shameful, incompetent, bullshit (see diffs above). He imagines I am stalking him, harassing him, persecuting him over a content dispute. He even says at WP:AE that I am deranged and his personal safety may be at risk. This must be why people are assuming there is a special bad blood between the two of us. But if you look at the history the same words are flung at anyone who ever warns or blocks him, and many who merely disagree or come too close. Many of your talk pages now have abuse from CoM worse than any aimed at me. It's not me. It is not getting his way.

Regarding the two blocks, the first was reversed not because the behavior was acceptable, but because in the view of some not in a namespace covered by the sanctions. ArbCom reworded the sanction to say it did apply to all namespaces. If the same edits happened today they would be a clear violation. The second block is endorsed here. CoM was not snared on a technicality, or unjustly impugned; he got off on two technicalities.

Returning to the present matter, CoM claims I was POV-pushing the ACORN article but now it has been "fixed". In truth, I broke a logjam that caused years of dissent over whether to call them nonpartisan in the lede -- the very issue that CoM came there to dispute. Republicans during and after the election attacked ACORN as, among other things, a "partisan" organization and therefore in violation of tax rules. Years before, Obama represented ACORN as a lawyer. ACORN registered 800,000+ voters, most liberals who voted for Obama. Obama's campaign gave a large contract to an ACORN affiliate. In process, ACORN workers committed fraud, a founder embezzled money, and we have this hidden camera pimp and prostitute scandal, leading to demands for congressional investigations. Per the AP, "Republicans are using ACORN to portray Democrats as corrupt and distract Obama from his policy agenda, the same way that Democrats used issues involving Halliburton".[50]

I wonder if CoM even looked at my edits before making the accusations. My issue is not content at all. Not only do I share his content position, I'm the one who fixed it! What I did, after discussing this on the talk page, was to create a new article Nonpartisan (American organizations) and encourage editors to clearly distinguish between the common usage of "nonpartisan" and the technical tax/legal designation. And then I made this edit, which also clarifies that some ACORN entities are nonpartisan and others are not.[51] My issue is that he jumped in to dispute a section I was working on, and began making edits and accusations that forced me to choose between quitting my efforts or seeking help here. He was so busy claiming bad faith, he did not even notice he agreed with me.

Stripping away the epithets, ChildofMidnight accuses me of spearheading the cabal. Admins have different opinions on what to do so they undo each other's blocks. I don't see how adding an intermediary would change either. ArbCom is already an intermediary, standing between disputing editors. Do we need a second layer between parties and ArbCom? If a report arises from by email or user talk page instead of WP:AE, will CoM's protests be any less angry? Will Admins' blocks be any more stable? I hope ArbCom, and the administrators around here, can keep the ship in order without delegating that role. I just don't see how an extra layer helps anything.

Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) (updated, 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

Statement by Jennavecia

If the original block had been for a week, we probably wouldn't have seen an unblock. Instead, we saw an edit of a month over a grammatical improvement to prose in an article that mentioned Obama. 5 Arbs agreeing that was spot-on. Awesome. But no. A month for that? Please. Reblock for a week from the time of the original block. Problem solved. Straight to ArbCom? Cut the drama, we've got more important things to deal with. Lara 03:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bigtimepeace

First, Xenophrenic puts it well above. As anyone who follows American politics closely knows, ACORN and Obama are clearly related topics. The final weeks of the presidential campaign last year were full of stories about supposed improprieties by ACORN on behalf of Obama and the Democrats—a meme that was actively pushed by the McCain/Palin campaign. This wasn't a trivial little one-off story, it was big, big news; and suggesting that ACORN (whose article has a whole section on the 2008 presidential campaign) does not, "broadly construed", relate to Obama is simply not accurate. Even today, the "ACORN and Obama in cahoots" meme is a big deal to many American conservatives, and the supposed connection between the two partially explains why Obama was asked about ACORN yesterday in an interview on one of the Sunday talk shows.

But I'd like to make a different point here. ChildofMidnight has been blocked (and unblocked) and/or warned for violating or nearly violating his topic ban on a number of occasions. At the very least he walks right along the edge of his ban, and has repeatedly made reference (either directly or indirectly) to the Obama articles and all the injustices that supposedly happen there all over the project. Contrast this with the behavior of User:Scjessey who was also topic banned for the same period as C of M but who, you'll notice (or rather not notice), never shows up on ANI or AE as possibly violating his topic ban. Scjessey has promised to stay far away from anything about Obama and has (as far as I know) managed to do so. ChildofMidnight can't seem to do that (it really, really shouldn't be that hard), and furthermore when he is called on it you get comments like this directed at Carcharoth. In all seriousness I would say that's roughly the 200th diff I've seen where C of M lashes out at another editor with phrases like "Your actions have done a lot to encourage incivility and you’ve lent support to censorship and thuggish mob behavior," etc. etc.

A week block would have been appropriate here (though I think even that was unnecessarily long, I would have gone with 48 hours), and it's unfortunate that Sandstein made the error of blocking for a month. Law should not have unblocked, but it's not the end of the world either. Both of them probably could have been a bit more flexible after the fact which could have prevented an escalation to this page but I'm sure they both meant well.

Among other good contributions, ChildofMidnight writes a bunch of articles about strange food items and other off-beat topics and that's great, but he he's been involved with an unbelievable amount of strife in more contentious topic areas, and contrary to his own belief that's largely due to his own actions rather than some grand conspiracy of "thugs" who are out get him. I have no idea what to do about the situation and am holding to a self-imposed restriction on even interacting directly with C of M—which seemed wise after he repeatedly, as in over and over and over again, said that a number of editors were acting just like the Nazis did and even illustrated that visually—but there's no way this is the last problem we'll see involving this editor. All in all it's just a sad situation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I also have to agree with Sandstein above that this comment by Law on C of M's talk page is incredibly ill-advised. Unblocking an editor in an at least semi-controversial manner and then joking around with said editor about how dumb the original block was (and that's exactly what's going on there—I don't think it can be read any other way) shows rather poor judgment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from ChildofMidnight

Nuts. This whole thing is nuts. You drama mongers should give it a rest and stop playing into the hands of those trying to ban me by causing these ridiculous disruptions. If there’s something you don’t want me to edit just ask.

I’ve avoided Obama articles and content about Obama for months including several articles I created and articles I’m interested in and have a history editing. I’ve avoided interacting with the abusive stalker who continues this relentless campaign to get me banned. Yet here we are again with the same bullshit connect the dots campaign where aspersions, innuendo, and assumptions of bad faith replace common sense.

Have any of you actually looked at the diffs? They don’t have anything to do with Obama and are all entirely reasonable. The article, which is long, mentions Obama once 3/4 of the way in. This effort to use noticeboards and complaints to win content disputes is HIGHLY disruptive.

I haven’t edited any of the articles about Obama or any content about Obama in months. So this is just another disruption stirred up by partisans who want me blocked and my ban extended so they can push their POV in an ever wider swath of articles with impunity. Everyone here has a stink on them from wallowing in the bullshit. Look at the diffs for heaven sakes!

And why didn’t Sandstein just ask me to leave off editing that article? How hard is that? A month-long block? What did he think would happen? Is there such an utter lack of common sense and decency in our admin corps that it’s come to this? And don’t get me started on all the lies, misrepresentations and distortions he and others have included in their evidence. If I addressed them all my statement would be as long as Wikidemon’s, only accurate.

Sandstein acted in good faith but improperly, against policy and with poor judgment. It was a classic block first ask questions later and it wasn't even correct on technical grounds as far as the length or its representation of my block log, which full of bogus blocks and mistakes that are even now being used against me.

Law contacted Sandstein after the block, but as per usual Sandstein pulled the bad block and run maneuver, and made no response. Law went ahead and unblocked which immediately defused the situation and allowed for collegial discussion.

I’m willing to leave off editing ACORN and any other article that people seriously think is about or closely related to Obama. Every political article and issue that is controversial can be related to him in some sense, but a complete ban on political subjects wasn’t the intent of the restriction and these disruptive reports shouldn’t be used to further interfere with my good faith editing.

I should be rewarded for abiding restrictions by restrictions that totally misguided and improper in the first place (four edits over two days with discussion inbetween? What a joke). This is just more of the same with efforts to censor me. The best way to stop the disruption is to stop these ridiculous and disruptive attacks and smears against me.

If there’s something you don’t want me to edit just let me know! But please, PUT A STOP THE MADNESS and drop this divisive, dramatic, and disruptive nonsense. There are no radical edits I’ve made. There’s no content about Obama or contact with anyone I’m not supposed to be in contact with (because of restrictions imposed at my request based on their relentlessly stalking and harassing me).

The role of admins and arbcom is to lessen the drama and to resolve disputes, not to add gasoline to the fire. That’s what Sandstein did and it was entirely proper that his absurd and erroneous block was undone. Showing the silliness of all this, the editing issue has been resolved now anyway with the inaccuracy I was highlighting getting corrected. Obviously I’ll leave off editing the ACORN article which some editors have suggested is too close to Obama even though he’s not discussed much in it. So there isn’t even anything in dispute except for this shit storm of Sandstein and Wikidemon’s making. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Juliancolton

Some of the involved parties made inappropriate actions; that we can't deny. But I'm in agreement with Lara. Discussion definitely should have taken place before unblocking CoM, but an immediate RfAR? Very little can't be resolved by the community, and in my opinion, this is a case where some conversation, a straightforward ANI thread and a few {{trout}}'s would have proved more effective than intervention from ArbCom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/5)

• I've now read through the threads linked above. My view is that this can be dealt with by motion. Sandstein was correct to block ChildofMidnight under the arbitration remedy (both for the article editing and for the comments on Wikidemon). Those protesting that people can follow CoM to articles and frivolously add Obama connections to those articles, are missing the point. If that happens, CoM should e-mail ArbCom and we will deal with it. In the meantime CoM should be editing articles that do not mention Obama at all. There are literally millions of articles that have nothing to do with Obama. The point of the ArbCom remedies was to steer people away from this area, not allow them to hover at the fringes. As for Law's unblock, on initial inspection, I see no good reason for the unblock, which was compounded by not engaging in discussion first. If this is a one-off incident, then a motion to admonish Law may be sufficient to warn people off acting like this in future when arbitration request enforcements are being disputed. Finally, the question of Wikidemon filing the request is problematic. There is sufficient bad blood here that I think a clarification requiring Wikidemon not to file requests about CoM (and vice-versa) would help here. Both should e-mail the Arbitration Committee if they think a breach of the interaction remedy is going unheeded, or they should be assigned an administrator who can raise such matters on their behalf. But reporting breaches of other remedies (which is what Wikidemon did in part here by objecting to the article editing) is just perpetuating the animosity between them. Having said that, I will wait for statements from CoM and Wikidemon, before proposing anything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Noting ChildofMidnight has commented on my talk page here. I agree with Xenophrenic's analysis above. Carcharoth (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
• Noting my general agreement with Carcharoth's comments. In addition, even if one perceives the connection or topic relation as tenuous, the plain English phrase "broadly construed" should remove any doubt. If an editor is under a "broadly construed" topic ban, the restriction covers any article that could be reasonably considered related under an inclusive interpretation of the restricted area. Considering such, it is easy for me to see how ACORN is perceived as related to Obama and difficult to understand how it can be considered unrelated under a broad interpretation of the Obama topic area. Also, as Carcharoth, I am waiting for further statements before moving forward. Vassyana (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• In response to Nmcvocalist, it's a moot point as there is no continuing disagreement or dispute over the block length. Sandstein acknowledged that the maximum block length under the remedy should be one week with apologies in his initial statement. Vassyana (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• I broadly concur with my colleagues and will wait for further statements.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely agree that the remedy as written would prohibit CoM from editing ACORN so the block was right on. If an admin did not understand the reason for the block, then they need to discuss situation with the blocking admin or make a request for a broader consensus at AE. To the larger issue of a case or motion to formally address the issue, I would like to hear more comments from arbs and replies from the involved parties first. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• The block was correct on its face, and I'm very much surprised that another administrator would take it upon themselves to overturn it without actual discussion with the blocking admin. — Coren ^(talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dr90s BLP-POV violations, incivility, sockpuppetry

Initiated by Thibbs (talk) at 20:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Thibbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• 43.244.132.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr90s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification for 43.244.132.168
• Notification for Dr90s

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Article talk-page discussions: 21/11/08-16/01/09 (some admin involvement), 15-20/12/08 (moderated by admin Hermione1980), 14-17/06/09, 16-18/06/09, 18/06/09
• User warnings/alerts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• User notifications: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
• SPI Reports: 1, 2-4
• BLP/N Report: 1
• Administrators' Noticeboard Reports: AN/I #1, AN/3RR, AN/I #2
• Other: RFP, NPOV report (not directed at Dr90s in isolation)

Statement by Thibbs

This makes the 7th time I will have filed a report on this user, a well-known sockpuppeteer with a history for BLP-vandalism and incivility. Filing reports takes me a lot of time and energy and in this case I am looking to streamline the process so that I can spend less time filing reports and more time editing. As a sockpuppet case, the natural place for me to post is at SPI. I am generally quite pleased with the way the SPI reports have gone, however I find myself explaining the same story over and over and over again to new administrators who are not as familiar with the history of this puppetmaster as I am.

I have twice sought and was granted designated administrators who I could go to in order to streamline the process, however at the moment one has retired (User:Hermione1980), and the other is on a 3+ month WikiBreak (User:Tanthalas39).

The reason I am filing this report is to request an official ArbCom-signed topic ban or total ban on Dr90s and his sockpuppets. If this motion is granted, I will have an additional reason (i.e. "Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee (closed cases only)") to request that official action be taken at SPI. This will streamline the process for me and improve the ability of the community to react to further SOCK violations by this indefatigable vandal. -Thibbs (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Note - Just as a quick update: I filed with SPI and the immediate problem has now been solved (i.e. the user has once again been banned). I still think a figurative ban would help in this matter and that it would be noncontroversial and easy to apply, but I will respect ArbCom's decision. -Thibbs (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Nathan

I don't think this really requires an arbitration case; the sockmaster is clearly not welcome at Wikipedia, and de facto banned even if no official sanction is on record. Thibbs has established a record of finding groups of sockpuppets in this area, and I think the clerks at SPI (of which I am one) would be willing to consider his checkuser requests with somewhat less exhaustive evidence than he has been posting. We do review the case archives, and a whole history isn't necessary for each new report.

If you like, you can ping me on my talkpage if you find a report isn't being processed quickly enough - but we are usually pretty good at keeping up. Nathan ^T 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/1)

• I appreciate the good faith and frustration of the filing party. However, I think it is clear at this point that the sockmaster in question is community-banned and that any additional socks should also be banned, especially if they continue to edit in the same unacceptable fashions that led to the ban in the first place. The structure of the WP:SSI pages has become rather more complex than it used to be, which I hope is not deterring valid reports of serious problems, but opening an arbitration case just to expedite the paperwork there should hopefully not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• In agreement with NYB and noting that SSI seems fit for the case as noted by Nathan above, decline. Vassyana (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline This is for SPI or ANI. If he's community banned, he could be dealt with swiftly by the admins. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per preceding - SPI is way to go, and there are other means of addressing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. A ban by the Community or an indef block of a sock account by any admin works better because it is faster. SPI or ANI is definitely better in this situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Sockpuppet investigations and various noticeboards are a better way to handle this. If that doesn't work, or there are systemic problems causing frustration, do ask around to get advice on how best to deal with this. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per my colleagues.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

---

<Insert the case name>

Initiated by CharlotteGoiar (talk) at 11:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• username1 (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)
• username3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username4 (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

Clerk notes

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