Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
RS and Fringe Noticeboard		25 September 2009	{{{votes}}}
Chan Tai San		24 September 2009	{{{votes}}}
Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight		20 September 2009	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration

RS and Fringe Noticeboard

Initiated by Ottava Rima (talk) at 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Folantin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Antandrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Itsmejudith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akhilleus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [9]
• [10]
• And many others.

Statement by Ottava Rima

As you can see, the listed parties are those who have constantly going around in the current instance and causing disruption. I did not include Paul B, as he has this time not backed people up on various talk pages. Gwen Gale has been included as someone who was far too close to Antandrus to be neutral and her non-community approved block for something that clearly contradicts what a personal attack is shows a strong conflict of interest. Antandrus cheering on the block and trying to justify it only verifies. Jehochman is included for threatening sanctions against me while there is clear evidence of meat puppetry. There will be evidence provided as to why his actions are inappropriate in more than one way.

This matter has gone on with me personally since 2008, and has happened to others since before that. As I have sent emails, diffs, and the such to various Arbitrators and talked to them, my involvement with this group started back at Ludovico Ariosto, where one member, Folantin, decided that she did not like how sources described someone as a Christian writer. At both Talk:Ludovico Ariosto and the Fringe noticeboard. As you can see, there are many of the people listed as parties that are constantly backing up each other, not offering any new information, and merely bullying to defend their friend. It came up in Itsmejudith's RfA, where her close relationship with Moreschi et al provided enough evidence that many people could not trust her for adminship.

During my own RfA, Folantin was one of the most aggressive people. I assumed Antandrus was acting in good faith with their concerns and I answered a question on their talk page here. I did not realize that Antandrus and Folantin were close friends. I questioned Antandrus in email why they allowed Folantin to act that way and they said that they thought it was problematic but would do nothing about it. I can forward that email if necessary. I don't like the trouble, so I stopped bothering with RS and Fringe noticeboards because that is where the group spends their time. A quick check will see that they respond on many of the same pages and same threads, always in support of each other.

There were no problems until Folantin and Dbachmann decided to destroy the Persian Empire page and turn it into a redirect without consensus. Edit warring, tag teaming, threats, and other bullying from the group continued. There was no consensus formed, and when there was consensus it was utterly ignored. This shows that there is very little concern about the actual page, and that it is personalized. The fact that they constantly shift from saying there was one empire, to two, to three, back to one in direct contradiction to what everyone else is saying shows that it is not a content dispute but to merely be contradictory. More attacks from Dbachmann.

It is obvious that there is not a content dispute but a behavioral problem since Oscar Wilde, with no connection to the Persian Empire, as the next article they attempted to use for disruption. There was very little room to claim that a source not an expert in an a specific individual nor using any sources as verification can make a claim that the individual is a pederast. Itsmejudith and John B attempted to, and quite vigorously, in the manner that they have done for a long time. It is no wonder that the first people to step in were Antandrus and Folantin. The fact that they claim that -I- am bullying, as if someone is capable of bullying a group with over 8 people and multiple admin is possible, only verifies that they are playing games with Wikipedia, violating multiple policies, and acting in a manner that is completely unacceptable. Since many are admin and many of them have abused their position of admin, it seems that ArbCom and only ArbCom can put a stop to this. I am confident that if this becomes an accepted case, that others with equal concerns about these individuals will come forth and show evidence which verifies that this is not an isolated case.

Reply to Akhilleus - it can be seen in every page from the Ludovico Ariosto pages to the current Persian Empire, ANI, etc, that Akhilleus is there, constantly backing people up, arguing the same points, responding for other people, and other abusive acts that are in violation of meat puppetry standards. This was not one isolated action, but he appears in -every- incident. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Thatcher - Itsmejudith started a Wikiquette against me. After that failed, she opened an ANI thread here. I put up some of the evidence that I have submitted to multiple Arbitrators so far on the ANI showing that there is a pattern of disruptive behavior that Itsmejudith and others were involved in. In retaliation, Jehochman claimed I was being incivil and threatened sanctions against me. Jehochman, who has worked closely with Akhilleus and others in the past, and who spent quite a bit of time at Fringe noticeboard with the individuals in question, is not an unbiased party in the matter. While claiming -I- am bullying, they are using admin actions as intimidation. I had no other choice but to take the evidence to ArbCom in order to protect from retaliatory threats and intimidation by those like Jehochman. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Akhilleus - Akhilleus's responses on the noticeboards, the Ludovico Ariosto page, the Persian Empire pages, et al, all show a constant - 1. he responds in place of others, 2. he backs up others without putting forth his own opinion, and 3. when it is revealed that the opinions of his friends contradicts policies, he promotes them anyway. Those three actions are the definition of meat puppetry. As an admin, he should know not to do such and the weight of his actions in the matter. His claim that I am making accusations without evidence is blatantly wrong. It is one thing to claim that there is not enough evidence, but it is quite different to say that I have not put forth anything I consider evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Bwilkins - I would ask that he reread the evidence and notice that there is nothing about Giano here and that this page deals with an issue that is far older than any of the Giano problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein - I have pointed out what many, many others have pointed out, which also prompted you to put up a admin review on yourself. Your statement seems to have nothing to do with the above facts laid out, and I would welcome you to deal with the issue at hand. Many of the diffs you listed clearly have no incivility or personal attacks, so it makes it strange that you would even list them. You introducing arguments dealing with people abusing what WP:NPA says to justify bad blocks into a case about long term meat puppetry and bullying with no connection to NPA or to Giano is strange at best. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Fullstop - Fullstop, you were added because you were edit warring at Persian Empire and have back to back helped with edit warring in multiple pages with Dbachmann and Folantin. Proxy reverting so that others don't technically violate 3RR is problematic. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Fullstop - as you can see above, I never included him in the rationale and, after discussion, there was no real need to have him listed as part of this, though his participation is still welcome. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Antandrus - Antandrus claims to have no involvement on specific pages. He leaves out the fact that he was heavily involved at ANI and talk pages, and constantly threatened blocks and other attacks which were pointed out by others who requested him to back down. If he had no prior relationship with Itsmejudith, why did they go out of their way to respond on that talk page? Either they were stalking my contribs or there was a prior relationship between the two. The appearance of Folantin there also and the continued pattern of behavior on that talk page is telling. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Antandrus's accusation "He tolerates no disagreement with his point of view" - At Nicolo Giraud, I was able to work with User:Haiduc to get the article to FA level. There was over 6 months worth of dispute covering multiple pages with much strife between us. Yet I was able to strike a compromise to settle the page, make both sides unwilling to continue edit warring, and to get the page to FA level. At The Lucy poems page, there was problems between User:Ceoil and myself and yet we were able to eventually work together to get the page to FAC. User:Malleus Fatuorum had constant disagreement on grammar and language at the Samuel Johnson page and we rarely agree on anything, yet we were able to work to a compromise and I allowed him quite a bit of language control even though I do not agree with some of his beliefs on the matter (as can be verified by various FAC and GAN reviews). I have a long history of working with people that absolutely do not agree with me or hold conflicting points of view. That is not the case here. The case is simply a group of people that want to destroy pages, not build an encyclopedia. You cannot work with such people. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Moreschi - Moreschi's venom here is not surprising. After providing over 12 sources that claimed Christopher Smart was a freemason, two users who use the Masonic wikiproject decided that there was no proof and started removing cited information. They notified a noticeboard that Moreschi and company above have always worked at and he decided that I was being "tendentious" in insisting that 12 sources by the biographers of Christopher Smart along with verification from two Masonic sources (a Masonic Lodge and the London library) was not enough to justify keeping material in. Was there 3 RR? No. There was "tendentious editing", which meant whatever he wanted it to mean. His appearance at Talk:Ludovico Ariosto was not surprising. His venom since then is not surprising. If Arbitrators would wish to go back that far, I would like to have the case amended to include his name. His appearance and venom here suggests that his original behavior has not changed, and that this is motivated by something deeper than what is proper for administrators to act. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to SarekOfVulcan - When someone puts up 12 sources, with a one being published by a Masonic group stating that an individual was a well known an influential Free Mason, and two members of a project say that there is no evidence and start edit warring out all mention of the individual, then chances are that there is a problem with their behavior. I was not the only one to notice their problematic attitudes. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Itsmejudith - I would recommend anyone reading her statement to then read her RfA, read the interaction between her and Moreschi, the fall out when Moreschi was dominating her RfA, attacking people, answering for her, etc. They can also look at the Fringe noticeboard on Ludovico Ariosto link to see Itsmejudith working with the group. They can also look at her talk page to see who comes to her defense. This is not a coincidence, and I have not pointed out other instances of it happening where I was not involved. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Gwen Gale - I have evidence that verifies that 1. there was a long conflict between Gwen Gale and myself on her interpretation of NPA, 2. that she is close friends with Antandrus and was working with Antandrus, and 3. that Gwen Gale was a previous indeffed user who has caused a lot of problems over time and should never have been trusted with ops to begin with, and her abuse of them in multiple ways, including blocking to help her friends bully and intimidate others, only verifies that she is a problematic user. I do thank Gwen Gale to confirm that she receives emails about my conduct, which verifies the communication and pattern that can be seen from on wiki behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Add to Reply to Gwen Gale - When even Roux and Chillum (two individuals that really don't like me) say that her block of me was bad, then her block of me was bad. It is clear that the block was done not out of objective beliefs, mistaken beliefs, or anything else. It was revenge, intimidation, and completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Folantin's accusations - 1. If anyone wants to verify my credentials in Persian history, please contact Josiah Rowe, as he can testify what our education entailed. 2. Everyone knows that I am an expert on 18th century history and also maintained the 18th century page and expanded it to its current position. This shows where Folantin, after his edit war against Wizardman when he told him that there was no consensus for the change, began to change all instances of Persian Empire that were used properly to push for her POV. This is edit warring across multiple pages to further her original destruction of the Persian Empire page. Yes, the Persian Empire existed in the 18th century and Nader Shah was a Persian Emperor. After pointing out the difference between Persian Empire and Iran, she edit warred with attacks in his edit summary. He then claimed that the Persian Empire page was a redirect to something else, which was when I realized that he edit warred the Persian Empire page out of existence and was editing every other page to conform to her original edit warring there. His accusations of me as a stalker are only an attempt to hide long term vandalism and disruption that he gets away with from the protection of his group. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Will Beback - Your pursuit of individuals and pushing to have deletion of pages simply because they were edited by someone who was banned without any regard for the content is dangerous to Wikipedia as a whole. You have had many, many complaints by many users for these actions and your wreckless pursuit of sock puppets of banned users. You should take the fact that we had no contact before as proof of my objectivity in my responses to you and that you should reform your behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Baseball Bugs - there is nothing in the above dispute that suggests it deals with content at all. Quite the contrary, it spells out that content is only a front for harassment and that they have edit warred and bullied on multiple topics without any respect to our policies simply to intimidate and harm. There is no content dispute here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Vassyana - Please tell me how Dispute Resolution can desysop an admin who makes one horrible block at the prompting of a group wishing the cause problems and possibly sanction another admin who puts forth sanctions. Please also tell me how it can prevent two admin adding in edit warring across multiple pages. There is substantial evidence of outright multiple admin abusing their authority and that is the heart of this matter. Dispute resolution is not capable of desysopping, which is the only possible way to protect Wikipedia against these individuals who are abusing multiple policies and destroying multiple pages simply to harass other users. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply again to Vassyana - if removing administrative privileges is not the only way to go about it, please tell me how I can clear my block log of Gwen Gale's clearly conflicted, clearly bad block that ignores what our policies are? Tell me also how other admin who have threatened to use blocks and have used blocks in the group can also be dealt with? The fact that they then use my block log as proof that I am a problem only verifies that unless they are desysopped or my block log is purged, they are able to continue their harassment. As you can see, there is long term edit warring by multiple admin on the Persian Empire page. Where are the blocks? There wont be any because people are unwilling to. They use their friends to get around consensus on content or sanctions. When you have a large group of people working together they can easily abuse every dispute resolution process, especially when this case is about two noticeboards that are part of dispute resolution. You don't take up this case and you make it clear that you think that this behavior is acceptable because there is no other way to deal with it than through ArbCom. There is no other way to deal with abusive admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann

Ottava Rima is one of the worst politicians and wikidramatists I have encountered in five years' active editing.

The above would be a simple content dispute, if it was even that (in actuality, the prosaic truth is that OR has no case sufficient to even make this a bona fide content dispute, a fact he tries to make up for by wikilawyering and political intrigue), and does not fall within the juristdiction of the arbcom by any stretch. Recommend a resounding decline and possibly a slap on the wrist for obnoxious and unwikilike behaviour. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

What the...? Wikipedia is not therapy and RFAR is not the place to host Ottava Rima's paranoid ramblings. This is only the latest of his accusations that there is some dark plot afoot. Only last month his conspiracy theory was that I was "pushing an agenda" on Persian Empire because I once joined WikiProject:Georgia [11]. The guy is a serial smear campaigner. The only thing all the parties in the "cabal" listed above have in common is that they have recently disagreed with Ottava Rima, who cannot bear to be contradicted in any way. This is also just a lame attempt by OR to dodge being sanctioned on ANI [12].

Addendum I have no idea who the "John B" Ottava refers to in his statement is: "I did not include John B, as he has this time not backed people up on various talk pages." Maybe it's John Kenney. If so, I can think of another good reason Ottava might tactfully want to omit him from the "cabal". Not so long ago, Ottava threatened to call John's university department to complain against him for disagreeing with him over the Persian Empire article [13] [14]. This threatened off-wiki harrassment led to an ANI thread in which Ottava (predictably) received no sanction from admins [15]. Apparently, because Ottava has amassed some FAs, GAs and DYKS he has carte blanche to behave how he likes around Wikipedia.

The "John Kenney" incident shows that Ottava is basically a stalker. So his opening this case is particularly ironic. The whole recent fracas only started because Ottava stalked me to the Talk:Persian Empire page with demands to have me banned because I voted against him on his failed RFA way back in April. It's obvious he was only there to troll because he doesn't have a clue about Iranian history (there's a non-exhaustive collection of his gaffes here, including the repeated claim "The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less." [16] and "The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that?" [17]). I suggest the Arbs dismiss this case as nothing more than the pursuit of a vendetta.

PS Ottava, it would help if you actually confined your rants to something approaching the word limit suggested by ArbCom at the top of the page (i.e. 500 or fewer). You are currently on 2700 or more approaching 3000. But I suppose rules are for other editors... (BTW No qualified historian would ever verify the absurd claims you have made about the history of Iran such as the examples I cited above. They are not even fringe. "The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD." Um, right).

Statement by uninvolved Durova

It is well known that I object to misuse of the 'prior dispute resolution' section to link to noticeboard threads: AN and ANI are not dispute resolution. That said, it would be inaccurate to characterize Ottava Rima in purely negative terms. He happens to be vying for the lead in the final round of this year's WikiCup, for example. Respectfully requesting that the Committee take at least 24 hours to consider this request; something pertinent came to my attention a while ago and I'll try to follow up. Durova³²⁰ 15:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, for those who aren't familiar with the WikiCup points system this is a summary of his credits for August and September 2009.[18] This reflects promotions; some of the work was written earlier in the summer. Durova³²⁰ 18:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Akhilleus

I'm trying to figure out why I'm included here, since Ottava's statement above doesn't say anything specific about me. In the recent past Ottava has accused me of meatpupptery with Folantin and others, and threatened to get me desysopped (e.g., [19], [20], [21]). But there's no evidence here, just a bunch of hand-waving. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at Ottava's response to me, and I fail to see how that constitutes evidence. I would say, however, that if the arbs accept this case, I hope that it's to review the behavior of all parties. As Ottava says in the current thread about him on ANI, alleging meatpuppetry without evidence is not civil. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Ottava has reported me to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for "constantly edit warring" on Persian Empire. My one, and only one, edit to Persian Empire: [22]. Why should I still be sanctioned? Because "Akhilleus's close talk page relationship with Folantin, Dbachmann, and Alefbe show that they are part of a reverting group that avoids the definition of 3RR by taking turns." Make of that what you will, folks. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The filing of this request seems to have been precipitated by my placement of a civility restriction on User:Ottava Rima in an attempt to control their incivility toward, and bullying of, other editors. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sanction permanent link for diffs, evidence and discussion that I shall not repeat here. Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

I hope this case will be declined. Editors need to attempt dispute resolution and mediation before seeking Arb enforcement. Ottava does good article work and has some legitimate complaints. But he also bears responsibility for escalating the disputes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Bwilkins

I admire the actual article work that Ottava Rima does. I always have. However, his unique reading of what WP:NPA actually says is disturbing, as is his reaction when his reading of it is challenged. A very recent thread regarding Giano on ANI confirmed this, unfortunately. Because of this unique (and incorrect) reading, his interactions with others are problematic. Because of these interactions, he was placed under civility restrictions, and this appears to be the tit-for-tat genesis of this ArbComm request. If this request is accepted, the interactions of Ottava Rima should be a priority focus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

My experience with Ottava Rima – as far as I can recall it right now – is limited to being a subject (among others) of his criticism in the ANI thread mentioned by Bwilkins, which is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II. Leaving aside the question of whether Ottava Rima's criticism was justified or not, the manner in which he expressed it ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27]) struck me as almost comically aggressive. Given the circumstances, I am not sure that the continued disruption caused by what seems to be his battleground-like approach to many disagreements can be handled at the community level. It might be worthwhile to open a case to try and find some reasonable set of restrictions to prevent him from continuing to engage in figurative fisticuffs with those he disagrees with, while still allowing him to do the good content work that – as Durova says – he evidently does. A site ban, or comparable broad sanction, would certainly be overkill; and the Committee is better able to customize any required restrictions than a community discussion.  Sandstein  18:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Fullstop

I don't get it. The only interaction I have had with Ottava Rima is at Talk:Persian empire, where he accused me (and everyone else who disagreed with him) of being a "pov warrior", a "vandal", and in general out to destroy the 'pedia. From the other interactions between him and others on the page, and from the two AN/I links posted as "evidence of prior dispute resolution", it seems that this is his general approach to dissenting opinion.

I'm not familiar with most of the other people named in the "involved parties" list. I only know of Itsmejudith by name, and I first heard of Gwen Gale earlier this month. Jehochman and Antandrus don't ring any bells. Akhilleus and Folantin I know mostly just from their lucid comments at Talk:Persian empire, though Folantin I know somewhat better from his work on Ossetic. The only person I'm really familiar with is DBachmann, and with whom (though we respect each other) I've had my share of tangles. I've never edited the Oscar Wilde article, nor did I have anything to say at the AN/Is (indeed, I only heard of the first when it was all over, and the second I just learned of when Ottava Rima posted his notification).

Apologies if I come across as somewhat bewildered. But I'm not partial to conspiracy theories, so I'm rather floored to find that I am now supposedly part of one. From his comments at that talk page (e.g. this), I knew vaguely of Ottava Rima's theory of a cabal that was out to destroy the project. But I assumed it was polemic, and didn't realize that he earnestly believed that.

Since all the editors in the "cabal" seem to be wonderful people, I'm quite pleased to be included in their number. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Antandrus

This is ridiculous. I'm not part of any cabal or conspiracy. Except for supporting her RFA, and the due diligence that involved, I have had no previous contact with Itsmejudith; I have never even edited the pages Ottava is going on about (Ariosto, Persian Empire, Oscar Wilde, their respective talk pages, and I can only recall visiting the Fringe Noticeboard once, and I seem to have made only two edits, in June 2008, to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard). Gwen's block of Ottava was a good one: his bullying of Maunus – since retired – and consistent labeling of good-faith editors as "trolls" and "vandals" was well over the line of what constitutes personal attacks, let alone incivility. There is one issue here that needs study: Ottava Rima's confrontational, my-way-or-the-highway approach to editing. He tolerates no disagreement with his point of view: if he encounters any, he threatens, bullies, and behaves noxiously until he gets his way, usually by wearing out the opposition. In a collaborative environment such as ours, such behavior is poisonous. Antandrus (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Karanacs

Last year I briefly acted as a mentor for Ottava Rima when other editors had similar concerns about his behavior as some of those providing statements here. In my experience, Ottava is very passionate about the articles he edits, which can be a good thing and a bad thing.

I am not completely up-to-speed on the exact set of circumstances that led to this filing, but I think this request touches on many of the more difficult dilemmas on WP:

• how do we handle situations where policy/guidelines may contradict the local "consensus"? This is a tricky issue when the problem may be at the noticeboard where editors would normally appeal. (I write this with no judgement whatsoever on the RSN issue listed above.)
• how much deference should subject "experts" be given? How can we help the expert and nonexperts work constructively together?
• where do we draw the line between civil and uncivil behavior (and what do we do about it)?
• what do we do with a valued content editors who at times appears unable to collaborate well with others?

Karanacs (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

Ottava Rima is truly terrible. This guy is so strongly reminiscent of User:Pigsonthewing: talented people, the both of them, with an unslakeable thirst for drama and an inability to admit to being wrong, ever. Please ignore this nonsense, and send him away until next time someone snaps and we wind up with an RFAR on Ottava Rima on the charge of tendentious editing taken to extremes. Moreschi (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And how about enforcing the word limit for once? Then Ottava's meaningless ramblings might not be clogging up so much of the bally page. Moreschi (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I was going to stay out of this, but Ottava just brought up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freemasonry#Assessment, where his second edit to the page claimed that "If thats so, then there needs to be a real freemasonry wikiproject, because this one doesn't deserve the title" and accused long-term project members of not being "Real Masons". After various other comments like "You inability to get over the fact that you are wrong is an impediment to Wikipedia as a whole and is very troublesome," he accuses members of "severely violating civility".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Itsmejudith

I brought the wikiquette alert and ANI that have led to this, so if there is anyone whose behaviour should be under scrutiny, it is mine. I am not acting in concert with any other users. It originated with me commenting on a source on RSN. Since then I have responded to Ottava Rima in a calm and conciliatory way, while he was accusing me of disruption and trolling, and threatening me with bans and blocks. These accusations continued during the WQA and ANI processes. He has a point about the Oscar Wilde page that is worthy of discussion and in fact I have tried to understand that point and suggest that it could be discussed further on the article talk page. But I am not part of the content dispute on that page. And I have had no dealings at all with Persian Empire. How can I prove a negative, that I am not part of a cabal? Some people have offered me advice and support on my talk page. I'm grateful, but haven't responded to them. I now remember that Folantin and I made similar arguments in relation to the dispute around Orlando Furioso, again that was in response to a question on RSN, and that was another case in which it was very hard to reason calmly with Ottava. He voted against me in my failed RfA, which was his prerogative; on that occasion too he accused me of collaboration with another editor whom I had not in fact worked with. He wasn't the only person to vote no, and I thanked him and all others who participated. Some people have said "leave Ottava alone and he will calm down". I chose not to follow that advice - on this occasion anyway - but pursued the procedures suggested in case of incivility, asking for a positive solution. Yes, he's got sensitive feelings, but so have other people too. I think it was probably going to come to a head anyway, and now this Arbitration Request will allow him space to put his side of the story and us to find an outcome that allows him to carry on editing in a collegiate way. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gwen Gale

I was unaware of any ongoing dispute between Ottava and me. Either way, he hasn't undertaken any dispute resolution with me, so this seems unfounded.

However, many (but not all) editors and admins believe Ottava has often gone beyond the bounds of WP:NPA. Owing to his helpful article contributions, which are widely acknowledged, even by those who sometimes disagree with his outlooks on content and sourcing (aka PoV), so far there has been no meaningful consensus as to how this might be dealt with. Ottava does helpfully and skillfully talk about sources and how they might be cited in article text following policy, guidelines and consensus. The worry is disruption owing to his wont of going after some editors who still disagree with him after he has done this, through what some have called threats and bullying/badgering. Ottava seems to look for what he thinks are "weaknesses" in an editor's background and then follows through, not with his further outlooks on sourcing and writing, but rather with broad talk about blocks, bannings, desysoppings, along with widely put smears and name calling. Sometimes he later claims this was sarcasm. I'd think this could only be meant to make other editors back off, or at least muddle things up enough to slow them down. Coming from an otherwise highly skilled editor like Ottava, this can bring out both the best and the worst in the otherwise good faith editors who deal with him. The only reason most experienced editors put up with this is because he has a lot to do with building a wide swath of helpful articles, which indeed is the pith of en.Wikipedia. Is there a consensus that this kind of behaviour in a volunteer-driven project is ok so long as the content keeps coming through? Is it fit for the sausage factory? Is it no more than grumpiness (as one editor put it to me in an email), to be blown off? Or are there hidden harms done to the content (even articles OR has nothing to do with) when good faith editors are driven away?

I'm thinking, perhaps it would be fitting for arbcom to try and find a way to keep Ottava in the fold and give further guidance as to how WP:NPA has sway with otherwise helpful editors like him. This said, I don't think wider input has yet been gathered through other means such as an RfC, hence arbcom may not be able to guage consensus until this has happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

Ottava Rima and I were on opposite sides of a dispute over the wording of a policy recently, and he immediately became hostile and started making innuendos of bad faith on my part. Since we've never had any negative interactions before that I recall, it seemed to me to be excessively personal and unhelpful. One comment was that my editing made him want to vomit[28] (he didn't seem to be joking), and another described me as a "single topic editor",[29] which is obviously false. OR's uncalled-for diatribes made participating in the discussion uncomfortable, which is why incivility like this violates Wikipedia behavior policies.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Baseball Bugs

I am only an observer to this particular dispute, not being involved in any of the articles in question. But it seems to me like there's something askew with this filing. OR wants to present it as primarily a content and sourcing dispute. But both his comments about other editors, and the reactions of those other editors, and his reactions to their reactions, make this megillah look an RfC/U disguised as a content dispute. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

His official complaint has to do with Persian Empire but his real complaint seems to be "everyone is against me". There's an old saying: "Never sue; they might prove it". OR is exposing his own behavior to even broader scrutiny by filing this complaint. It's a major gamble. He might end up being vindicated; he might end up with a lengthy block; or he might find himself with a topic ban. Anything is possible. The one thing that is apparently not possible on his part is what he once told me I should do: To be forgiving of the behavior of others. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved SB_Johnny

I am also just an observer here, but as a friend of Ottava's (at least I try to be), I strongly recommend that this case be declined.

To give some background for my opinion: some weeks ago Ottava had asked me to look at something, and when I did so and !voted in a way contrary to his views, he accosted me on IRC accusing me of tag teaming (or being part of a cabal or something of that nature), in a manner that I found quite offensive.

With that background in mind, I don't find it at all surprising that many of the "named parties" are rather surprised to be named, much less associated with one another in this manner. I have no opinion on the validity of the "restriction" that seems to be the motivation for this request: if the restriction is enforced in an abusive way, then perhaps a request for arbitration might be in order.

As things stand now, perhaps the best way to move forward would be for Ottava to open an RFC/U on himself (I'll second), and invite all of these parties to comment. That would be a more appropriate way to go fishing.

Sorry, Ottava, but you need to confront your suspicions about this without the benefit of a (busy, volunteer) committee before bringing things to this level. Frankly, I think quite a few of those you're accusing are completely boggled by this move. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Heimstern

I'm generally all for going through the proper DR steps, as Vassyana suggests. In this case, though, the vitriol is runnning so high that I tend to think that's probably going to be pointless and that arbitration is going to be inevitable. (And yes, I know, arbitration cannot solve vitriol, either, so we're probably just screwed on this one.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Will someone give a brief recap of the background and current events, please. Not everyone keeps abreast of the admin noticeboards on an hourly basis. Thatcher 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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

• Comment there have been some occasions where Ottava has been able to work out differences, and has has been correct on occasions with ensuring enwiki material correlates with the sourcing. I am trying to figure out exactly what Ottava is asking. My impression would be to decline an all-encompassing case which I get the gist of in the statement, in favour of mediation of some sort. And all the boards need more eyes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. There are many dispute resolution options remaining untouched with the potential to resolve this situation. Vassyana (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Responding to Ottava Rima, there seems to be a lot of heated debate, accusations, and related modes of speech flying around. Removal of administrator permissions is not the only avenue or possibility for this dispute. Step one of dispute resolution is cordial discussion. If that fails, asking for a bit of help with communication to keep things calm and non-aggressive can be very helpful, such as by asking for a volunteer from MedCab. If worse comes to worse, requesting comment about user conduct can help provide feedback from the broader community. These opportunities for resolution, or equivalent attempts are dispute resolution, are not optional as prequisites to arbitration. I must decline this request in the absence of indications that such avenues would be completely fruitless, that misconduct taking place is particularly severe or disruptive, or that the disagreement is beyond the resources of the community to resolve. Vassyana (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Accept This issue is going to come to us either now or later because I see absolutely no chance that the situation will be resolved without a ruling from ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per Flo. There are issues here that need looked at. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Chan Tai San

Initiated by Xavierq (talk) at 01:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Xavierq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Nysanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nysanda#Arbitration

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

EAR Attempt

Discussion Page

Statement by Xavierq

This user continues to delete properly sourced material based on personal knowledge that contradicts all sources, even his own. I have purchased copies of his cold sources that he claims are the contradiction. These were also deleted. Attempts to discuss it on his talk page were deleted and called harassment, personal attacks and vandalism.

I feel I have exhausted all methods to resolve this on my own or through third party and now request an arbitration.

Response to Arbitrator comments

Where have I linked to a personal website? I linked to a scanned copy of a magazine. I thought that's how you were meant to source things? Are you telling me that we're allowed to source a magazine, but we aren't allowed to actually have a copy of it online? I'm confused.

Also if you've actually looked at the source in question, it blatantly proves that what Nysanda claimed was an intentional lie. The source he claimed leaves Gus Kaparos out actually lists him plain as day. And he would know exactly what it said since he's the translator used in the article. There's actually pictures of him personally standing next to Gus Kaparos in the article.

No mediation is going to be successful if one user is knowingly and intentionally lying.

Statement by Nysanda

This is a case of (1) a person not involved in the subject with no special knowledge constantly medling with an already well sourced entry and (2) citing very quesitonable sources

PLEASE NOTE: "JohninDC" is a neutral person who stepped in and tried to help. He initiated the EAR discussion where we agreed to wait for other NEUTRAL people to look at the discussion and article. While I waited, "Xavier" continued to edit the article! He also continues to harass me with unwanted personal messages etc.

Again, he claims to have no vested interest, but since his ONLY other action on wikipedia was to try and get an entry about Michael Parrella delted, I have suggested he is either Gus Kaparos or a person affiliated with Gus Kaparos. IE, he has a vested personal and business interest in inserting Mr Kaparos into the article and in removing the other links and figures. Kapraos also tried (unsuccessfully) to sue Parrella and holds a grudge against him. ALL OF THIS SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT TO WIKI.

I have been really occupied with IMPROVING the lama pai article but would like to see the Chan tai San entery either (1) left as it was (and which "John" agreed was well sourced) OR (2) remove the controversial section since when all is said and done, it is NOT essential to the entry and would end this constant revision by "Xavier"

Response to Arbitrator comments

Hyperbole, innuendo and personal attacks have no place in this community. While I CAN relate to a new person's confusion on format and policy (been there and done that), I do not believe in this case that is the issue. This person has only done two things here 1) tried to get an article deleted and 2) tried to insert a single name into a well sourced article. I would suggest that the fact that the person he is trying to insert has long standing issues with the person he is trying to get deleted is not "coincidence".

The Chan Tai-San article stands now as well sourced and up to standards. If the "list" is controversial, it can be deleted WHOLESALE and the article would not even be damaged. This is what "JohninDC" suggested. I agreed to this as a compromise (even though it would mean deleting my own name) but "Xavier" was not content with this, which raises questions about motives in my opinion

Nysanda (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To Vassyana - The article about Chan Tai San makes no reference to my business nor advances my business in any way. At the very end, it lists his students, which I happen to be one. I do not believe that makes for a conflict of interest, though the obvious soluition if it is would be to delete the controversial list! Fortunately or unfortunately, I happen by academic training and experience to be one of the foremost authorities on Chan Tai San and the so called "Tibetan" martial arts, thus I contribute. I did note in one of the links you cited that "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason", and I believe that my contributions fall within this scope. Thanks Nysanda (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! I also removed the angelfire direct links while keeping the citation info (article name, author, magazine, issue, date) Nysanda (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Decline. There are many options left for dispute resolution. One thing that may benefit this situation is for an editor to civilly and politely explain our reliable sourcing and copyright violation policies to Xavierq. Linking to personal websites and unauthorized copies of copyrighted material is unacceptable, but a bit of cordial explanation is desirable over jumping all over the new editor. Vassyana (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• In reponse to Xavierq, yes, linking to a scanned copy is illegal, unethical and against our site policies. It is a violation of the periodical's copyright. I've tried explaining briefly on your talk page, including links providing more information and places where you can seek more guidance. Regarding personal websites, Angelfire is a service hosting private sites and the links there were additionally to copyright violations. Engaging in copyright violation could result in the loss of your editing priveleges, so please take the time to better understand the issue. Vassyana (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• In reponse to Nysanda, we should try to educate new editors about our policies. If there are problems with civility, filing a polite and neutral request for review at WP:WQA may be helpful. I also note that you state the compromise agreed to would delete your name. Please review our advice regarding conflicts of interest and our prohibition on using Wikipedia to advance one's own goals. Acting in self-promotion or otherwise engaging in advocacy could result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia, so please familiarize yourself with our standards in that regard and proceed with caution. Vassyana (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying. Vassyana (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Decline. Per Vassyana, who outlines some options above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Vassyana makes good points. I suggest that an experienced administrator or mediator, perhaps one with some subject-matter knowledge, try to assist these editors in working through this somewhat abstruse (to me) dispute. Reserving my vote in case such an attempt proves unsuccessful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassyana and endorsing Newyorkbrad's suggestion.  Roger Davies ^talk 01:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Roger Davies comment (and other arbs comments.) FloNight♥♥♥ 01:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per all the above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per all the above. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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 (update: now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive47#ChildofMidnight)
• User talk:Sandstein#Child of Midnight (update: now at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2009/September#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 [30], [31]) 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 ([32], [33] [34], [35]). 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 ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40]). 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 ([41]), 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)

Comment regarding Vassyana's "decline" vote

Vassyana, thanks for your and your colleagues' confirmation that the unblock was incorrect, but that's not what I came here for. I could have gone to WP:ANI for that, but my point in requesting arbitration is to find out whether such a new community discussion is indeed needed every time an arbitral sanction needs enforcement. I believe it ought not to be. I believe that it is required to maintain the Committee's effectiveness as a dispute settlement body to either sanction Law or at least to clearly state, by motion, that any administrator undoing arbitration enforcement actions, without support by the Committee or very clear community consensus, will be subject to sanctions including desysopping. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to draw the Committee's attention to Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Appeal of discretionary sanctions (2007), where you ordered: "Administrators are cautioned not to reverse [discretionary] sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations." In several other decisions, you used similar language. If you do not enforce it now, you may substantially diminish the effectiveness and binding nature of your decisions (which would be bad, because we do need an effective ArbCom).  Sandstein  16:09, 26 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)

On blocking CoM again: we're either rapidly approaching or have already passed the point where the issue of questionable edits is "stale." A possibility is to block for 1 second, instead of continuing the week, with a suitable edit summary (Arbitration enforcement: Editor violated topic ban, reduced because of stale report) with a link to this decision. If CoM is to be reblocked for the appropriate duration, I would like that done by motion.--Tznkai (talk) 20:03, 23 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)

Some sourcing noting the alleged connection between ACORN/Obama

• The connection between ACORN and Obama is something of an article of faith for the American right. This Bill O'Reilly segment immediately following the most recent scandal offers a clue to the rationale (scroll down to the part right after "Over at NBC they are actually making excuses for ACORN"). A portion of the 'fight the smears' website is dedicated to ACORN allegations. The NRO offered an early set of allegations here. John McCain brought it up in the debates. Etc. I don't know that the factual nature of the connection is very important to our discussion, the perception of it for the american right is. Prior to the election the allegation was that ACORN would rig the election in favor of obama. After the election the allegation shifted to more inchoate targets, including claims that ACORN would rig census results on Obama's behalf, etc.. I don't want to belabor the point, but the articles are connected. If the committee intends to settle this by motion (if they intervene at all), the motion should not be to clarify that the ban extends piecemeal to ACORN, unless you want to be back here again when another allied article under the topic ban is brought up. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 22 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[42] 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.

Is there a problem problem that needs fixing, and that can be resolved by placing an intermediary between me and ArbCom? ArbCom is my first and last stop to resolve problems with CoM, because every other venue is precluded by our mutual no-interaction rule. As a threshold for my requests, 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 have not been told otherwise, so I filed four requests on that premise, two for clarification and two for enforcement. They resulted one way or another in two blocks of CoM, and two warnings that he would be blocked if he continued. Diffs are in the collapsed section, below.

please review these diffs in this collapsed section to see the history of my post-case participation in ArbCom
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[43][44][45][46] 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."[47] and "No. It is not acceptable".[48] 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)[49] 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[50][51][52][53] and egged him on at his own talk page.[[54]] There were other sanction violations that affected me less directly.[55][56][57][58][59] 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.[60] 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.[61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] I filed a first request for enforcement over the Nazi content after Risker seemed to say that is where the matter belonged.[78] 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. On the current case (diffs in AE report), my issue is not content at all. I had created create a new article, Nonpartisan (American organizations), and encouraged editors to clearly distinguish between the common usage of "nonpartisan" and the technical tax/legal designation. That, potentially, could clear up years of dispute over many articles about politically-active American nonprofit organizations. And then I made this edit for further clarification.[79] My issue is that CoM jumped in to dispute a section I was working on that arose from the 2008 election, and began making edits and accusations that forced me to choose between quitting my efforts or seeking help here. He was busy claiming bad faith, and claims again here that it was a content dispute, but I do not think he noticed that my content position actually agrees with his. Regarding why I felt each report was justified at the time: (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 of the four reports: (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 by CoM against me, other editors, and involved arbitrators and administrators, and both blocks were quickly overturned, leading to administrator disputes. Looking first at the accusations, ChildofMidnight called us all 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). Stripping away the epithets, CoM says that there is a cabal, and sometimes implies that I am at the front of it. He imagines I and others are 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. I can see why people assume from that, and from my having policed his edits on the Obama articles, that there is some bad blood specifically between the two of us. But if you look at the history CoM makes the same accusations of 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. And in my history, I've dealt with dozens of difficult editors. It's not me, and it's not him. It is how CoM communicates when he does not get 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 in response 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, when admins reversed each other. 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, or CoM's inconvenience at being the subject of a wheel war. 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 protest any less? 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)

Question from Spartaz

Has this stalled or are the arbs arguing away fiercely in the background about whether to do anything here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Revised bitching from Noroton

My original comment was censored, not by clerks but first by someone involved as a commenter in this case, Protonk, some of whose points I was criticizing. (I thought that clerks were the only ones authorized to police these pages, and the comment was up long enough for clerks to note it.) But that doesn't remove the fact that administrators on this site have still created a complete mess, and you all need to be confronted with the facts.

We have admins quite happy to pounce on editors on one side of this (Child of Midnight) while strangely unable to act when repeated complaints are made at 3RR/N and AN/I. You all need to be confronted with that.

We have a policy, NPOV, that arbitrators commonly throw up their hands and say they can't possibly enforce because it's a content policy and they only deal with behavior. At AN/I, admins regularly say the same thing. Fair enough. But then when complaints are made on one side in a dispute and are ignored when, shortly afterward, complaints from the other side result in quick blocks, we have admins -- in effect -- conducting POV pushing by proxy. Do they mean to do this? Intention is nearly impossible to prove, but in other cases we do have cases of admins with quite pronounced points of view blocking editors with opposing views, and doing so at the behest of POV pushing edit warriors. On this matter we have LuLu of the Lotus Eaters and Xenophrenic both edit warring at Acorn, both going over the 3RR limit in a days-long (now weeks-long? I haven't bothered to check) POV fight. And we have a complete, total breakdown in admin enforcement at both AN/I and 3RR/N. Not only did my second 3RR/N complaint get absolutely no action, but it sat there as every other single fucking complaint on that page was dealt with. So now we don't just have admins unable to enfroce NPOV, but they can't even enforce clear, black and white, obvious, cut and dried repeated violations of behavioral policy -- but only if those complaints are made against one side. There is no possible way that LuLu's violation of WP:3RR can be interpreted as not a violation, although that was done. I guess no admin dared to even comment on the second violation at 3RR/N because the embarassing hypocrisy of not acting was too much to handle. And when I brought it to AN/I, not one of these editors or admins commenting here had the decency to comment when the shoe was on the other foot. You need to be confronted with that.

Stomp in (commenting or acting) when it's one side getting the complaints and then ignore the blatant violations on the other side. What sterling behavior we have on the part of our admin corps here. You need to be confronted with that.

But when you do it, don't expect not to be called hypocrites. You are all, each one of you, hypocrites. Got it? Hypocrites. You make yourselves look like you're enforcing various behavioral policies, but when you enforce them only selectively against one side, what you're enforcing is something entirely different.

And you need to be confronted with that.

And here's the proof showing that you are Hypocrites. [80] Hypocrites. [81] Hypocrites. [82] Hypocrites. [83] There's just never enough time to address the crap that one side pushes out, but always the time to suit up for the S.W.A.T team when the other side is spitting on the sidewalk. What possible explanation can there be for this other than that you are complete and utter hypocrites.

And that's true whether or not you meant to POV push by hobbling one side and coddling the other. The fact is, you did it, no matter what you meant to do, and selective enforcement is still selective enforcement whenever you dip a toe in as an admin either by commenting or blocking one side and then walk away. Because you can be expected to know what will happen.

Look at the discussions the diffs point to and you can't come to any other conclusion: You all failed. Massively. If you have any integrity at all, any of you, editors, admins, arbs, you'll recognize that. Whether you have the guts to actually admit this is fucked up is not something that I even hope for. Therefore the resignation. -- Noroton (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• 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)

Prevote comments from Vassyana

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) CoM notes that he is willing to abide by any warnings regarding his topic ban. I hope that enforcing administrators acknowledge that drama-lite and preventative route. However, on the other side, I hope that CoM does not use the opportunity to repeatedly test the boundaries of his topic restriction. In response to CoM's comments, I do agree that the topic ban was not intended to be inclusive of all American politics articles nor was it intended to restrict him from articles that passingly mention the President or that Obama may have expressed an opinion about. I would be very disheartened and concerned if the topic ban was being applied in that manner. However, I do find it at least deeply misguided to compare ACORN (as a topic) to broader points, as ACORN is intimately associated with Obama in United States political discourse and gained immense prominence in American political mind as part of the discourse about Obama. The topic ban clearly applies where there the topic, its importance, or its role in common political discussion is directly connected to President Obama. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Decline. CoM has indicated that he will abide by reasonable warnings. I believe the statements of other editors and artbitrators have made clear the breadth of CoM's topic ban. Sandstein has acknowledged the error in maximum block length. Sandstein is currently undergoing a voluntary review of his administrative actions, including block lengths and usage. It's been made very clear by arbitrator and other comments that Law's unblock was highly inappropriate and he may be sufficiently advised and warned. Thus, there doesn't seem to be much left to arbitrate or consider by motion. Vassyana (talk) 01:11, 25 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)
• This Unilaterally undoing another administrator's action without discussion or consultation does nothing to help an already heated enviroment. is the crux of the case and such things happen all too often. Jennavecia makes a good point too. I suggest this be dealt with via motion as I also think this particular situation is not ready for a full arbcase. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Reblock for a reasonable term and move on. Cool Hand Luke 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)