I have no problem with users who disagree with me, but in recent discussions, Ihardlythinkso has gone beyond disagreeing and has instead resorted to degrading me. I don't appreciate having my intelligence attacked and being dismissed as a troll. Aside from this one statement that was a bit unkind, my biggest crime has been to hold opinions that Ihardlythinkso disagrees with.

This isn't the first time that this user has demonstrated combative behavior (he recently made similar attacks on Kevin Gorman's intelligence) and such conduct is not likely to encourage a healthy editing environment. Therefore, I would request that the committee examine his behavior, some of which is evidenced below, in greater detail.

Attacking Kevin Gorman's intelligence, Attacking SummerPhD behind his back, Implies that I am "unable to think", among other things, calls me a troll, calls me a troll in edit summary, Tells me I have "no sense", drags up old dispute in order to attack me further, ridicules Drmies, more attacking, implies that supporting me might equate to bad judgment

Re Leaky: Nothing is likely to happen at either ANI or RfC/U. This is the right place. Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cube lurker: I think I have demonstrated why that comment is accurate. Keep in mind that most of the hostility I've noted came prior to that remark and supports its validity. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cube lurker: Yes, but his feeling that way doesn't permit him to treat me like an animal. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re Drmies: I listed you as a party because I mentioned you by name in one of the evidence diffs. Also, this doesn't simply revolve around the Kaldari case. I made a response to an RfA vote by Ihardlythinkso, who went berserk over my comment and then dragged the Kaldari/Eric situation into it by ridiculing my take on that. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Leaky Caldron

Seriously ASO, this is not the right place for this. Leaky Caldron 16:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Drmies

Floq's red link is first and foremost; it in itself is enough reason for the Arbs to decline this. ANI is of course not the proper venue; besides, Ihardlythinkso doesn't believe in it, though I don't understand why they felt the need to comment there--diff above, "ridicule". Having said that I understand the plaintiff's exasperation, at least to some extent. The badgering of Summer and the snark at ANI and other venues addressed at me, it makes for an unpleasant working environment (I echo and endorse NYB's old-fashioned jeremiad).

By the same token, NA (whom I used to know better as Automatic Strikeout) doesn't come here with clean hands, especially if this is supposed to revolve around the Kaldari case. My take: NA is of the "hate Eric" camp and Ihardly is of the "love Eric" camp. (Most editors I know, indeed most editors who know of the various issues, aren't in either camp, I think. If it weren't for what seems to be this anti-Eric crusade on NA's part I'd get along with them just fine.) Ihardly was pissed at me because I opposed a block on Kaldari, NA is probably pissed because Kaldari was admonished pretty broadly, including by me. But that's neither here nor there.

To cut a long story short, arbitration is not yet the way to go; an RfC/U is. I find that both editors have a habit of getting real personal real quick and of harboring grudges; from my point of view I am most bothered by Ihardlythinkso's behavior, but, as NYB says, arbitration is simply too blunt a tool. There is another blunt tool in the arsenal, of course: a severe form of an IBAN--if the one has commented in a thread on a drama board or a user talk page, or on any article talk page, the other may not comment there. Let's exempt my talk page, and NYB's. Just a thought, and probably not a really useful one.

One last thing: a few angry remarks from Ihardlythinkso aimed at me isn't enough, IMO, to make me a party in an arbitration case. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from an uninvolved Konveyor Belt

I recommend this case be declined, as there are other steps of dispute resolution that can be tried before bringing it here. An RfC/U would be a good start, as it allows the community to give feedback on his actions. This is a little premature. KonveyorBelt 16:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cube Lurker

This is not one sided. If you post this[1], don't you expect a hostile response? There's things on both sides that probably would have been best left unsaid, but this seems far below what would require a Case, or frankly IMHO even an RFCU.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northern Antarctica And no doubt he feels his comments were accurate and justified. That's always the way of things when people clash.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kevin Gorman

I believe this case should be declined, and I also believe that a redlinked RFCU is not at all a good reason by itself to decline this case. I don't believe that any reasonable person can with a straight face argue that something good would come out of an RFCU on IHTS, and I don't think that processes that nothing good will come from should be encouraged - process wonkery isn't a good thing, and NOTBURO should apply w/r/t arbcom accepting cases as much as it should apply elsewhere. (If anyone does believe an RFCU would be beneficial, I suspect they've not watched an RFCU play out in the recent past.) However, the 'nothing good will come out of this' is an equally valid reason to reject this as an arbcom case.

I do want to speak to what NYB brought up, though. Although this isn't the case to accept to deal with this set of issues, if they aren't eventually dealt with, it will pose a severe risk to the longterm health of the project as a whole. When they are dealt with, it will be messy. It will probably involve a decent number of contributors either leaving or being banned. But, given the threat they pose to the project if not dealt with, that's not at all an adequate reason to put off dealing with them for longer than is necessary. (Besides the threat they pose to our editing community and editor retention issues in general, they also pose one hell of a threat to GLAM collaborations and to Wikipedia's increasing acceptance among different sectors and demographics than our current editor base plays to.)

I would highly encourage arbcom to pay close attention to upcoming issues, and purposefully accept as a full case a situation that is as well suited to deal with this set of issues as will reasonably occur, and I'd highly encourage them not to wait longer than is necessary. It's going to be a pain in the ass for everyone involved, but long term inaction is going to have a worse effect on the project's health than the outcome of any case will, and given the level of entrenchedness, arbcom is the only body on ENWP that can reasonably try to address the situation. Long term inaction in the face of the facts equates to action in and of itself, and I hope that arbcom realizes that fact. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from an uninvolved Liz

On the surface, this looks like a case about incivility, the underlying reasons of which I'm not sure are relevant. I haven't seen any ARBCOM cases that rested solely on incivility, it's usually considered as a mitigating factor when discussing remedies and an editor who has been uncivil will often receive a harsher outcome.

That said, complaints about verbal abuse like this rarely get a satisfying resolution at AN/I unless the offender is a new user and then they are quickly blocked. But among experienced editors? Many admins pointedly say that this is a grey area and, short of death threats, they are reluctant to even hand out a limited block.

Kevin Gorman says that nothing "good would come out of an RFCU" and that is the long-term problem. Rude behavior or verbal abuse is not penalized and goes unsanctioned. While hardy, long-time editors can handle themselves in this atmosphere, for new users who look at Wikipedia as a scholarly resource, it's indicative of a very hostile, immature, contentious environment. It can become toxic and I agree that ARBCOM should at some point rule on this issue. I'm just not sure that this is the case to do that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Go Phightins!

This is a case involving two editors whose encyclopedic contributions (i.e. what the readers see and what we should strive to focus on) both can be improved, as they seem to spend the majority of their time formulating, promulgating, or continuing drama at AN/I or other associated venues, both often violating our policy on civility. I couldn't agree more with Northern Antarctica that civility is important, but he does not exhibit it very much, specifically not in this instance, either. I agree that, in theory, before a case originates here, there should be an RFC/U, but if anyone can find an RFC/U within the last, say, two years that has come to a fruitful resolution, or frankly that was not a waste of everyone's time, I would be unaware that it existed. As such, I frankly would support the arbitration committee taking on a case like this, however Northern Antarctica should know that his conduct has been less than exemplary, so taking this case opens him up to potential repercussions as well.

Whether or not the arbitration committee decides to take this case, it seems to me that both Northern Antarctica and Ihardlythinkso, particularly Northern Antarctica, as at least IHTS does write a fair amount, should spend more time "building a free encyclopedia", and less time griping at each other's manners or lack thereof including baiting contributors into "uncivil behavior" (Northern Antarctica) and needlessly perpetuating and stirring what admittedly could be considered a "cesspool" at AN/I (Ihardlythinkso). Moreover, it is high time we acknowledge that the perpetual "civility controversy" that Northern Antarctica/Automatic Strikeout decries predominantly stems from discontent over the civility of a completely different contributor, one who at least writes, and is needlessly promulgated in completely unrelated discussions, such as the one in which "incivility" manifested itself this time, causing these proceedings. Go improve an article; that helps the readers whom we supposedly try to serve ... this does not. Go Phightins! 00:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from SummerPhD

As I often have trouble deciding the appropriate venue for an issue, I wish to make it clear that I have absolutely no opinion if this belongs here or somewhere else. That said, I feel quite strongly that this issue has been around for a while and demands some attention. If this is not the proper venue, please suggest the appropriate one.

Other than the opening description, I have not read others' statements. I have, however, seen interaction between IHTS and a couple of the editors listed as "involved" here. I do not wish to speak for any of them, but expect their experiences have been similar to mine.

My interaction with IHTS (most of it here), precipitated by this comment among others, was frustrating, annoying, unproductive and seemed to be less of a discussion than a my statements threaded with IHTS's tactics. In my estimation, IHTS believes:

Their personal attacks are justified and the only appropriate responses to what they feel are personal attacks directed at them.
Their personal attacks are not personal attacks.
Personal attacks do not matter.
I have no business warning anyone for NPI unless and until I can warn absolutely everyone involved (that I have unfairly singled them out).
Warning them about personal attacks and incivility is a form of personal attack.
AN/I is broken and best ignored.
They are unable to use escalating warnings leading to AN/I for fear of boomerang.

In short, the message I got was: "I've done nothing wrong. You are wrong to state otherwise. Now fuck off." (For the record, of the numerous attacks in that prolonged exchange, repeatedly questioning whether I was a human being seemed particularly low.)

If anyone does not see (or wishes to see but doesn't want to search for it) any of the issues, ping me and I'll add a link. Otherwise, unless anyone has direct questions for me, I see enough unpleasantness already and will be ignoring this thread. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Gerda Arendt

I talked to Northern Antarctica, it was archived with a question open. I see in the first diff provided that Ihardlythinkso said "learn to read and write". Assuming good faith, that is an advice to improve skills, but above it is described as "Attacking Kevin Gorman's intelligence". I hardly think so, having no way of even remotely interpreting it that way (or even as a personal attack): intelligence has nothing to do with reading skills. My advice is to simply improve communication between editors. I don't see how arbitration would help in this case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse. --Rs chen 7754 17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse → Call me Hahc21 16:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ihardlythinkso. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed this case yet, but I am concerned that overall, the level of civility and decorum across the wiki seems to be declining. This is a risk to the long-term health of the project, a fact I wish contributors would bear in mind when choosing the tone of their comments in both everyday and contentious situations. Civility and collegialiy don't mean kindergarten norms of behavior or the enforcement of a phony-baloney artificial politesse, but neither do they contemplate the levels of snark, condescension, name-calling, and rudeness that we've all grown used to on too many pages. That being said, civility blocks and arbitration cases have often proved to be too blunt an instrument to be helpful with this problem, and I'm at a loss what to do to try to solve it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that when the "conformation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" consist of an ANI thread and talk page discussion, both from within the last 48 hours, the matter is probably not ripe for arbitration. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per Go Phightins! Liz, no amount of ArbCom rulings will make people play nice together. For a community as diverse and large as Wikipedia's to have a healthy level of civility and amicable yet intellectually honest discourse is difficult. It is something that is in a perpetual state of dynamic tension, and one that we all help maintain by trying not to antagonise others, and trying to understand each other. Some care less for that than others, some are less able to empathise with others, but if enough are willing to lead by example and help smooth out rough patches before things get out of hand, then things should be mostly OK. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to define what "civility" means; while some behaviours are quite obviously uncivil (personal attacks for instance), a lot of the incivility editors come across on Wikipedia is more sneaky and sometimes even widely accepted. There is an example I love making, which in my opinion clearly exemplifies this: sometimes, while discussing the actions of an editor, people will glibly make references to WP:NOTTHERAPY – which is something I find deeply offensive, much more so than, say, calling an editor a troll. And I admit I have occasionally been guilty of using WP:CIR to explain why I though an editor should be blocked, which isn't much better. Also, Wikipedia encourages a passive-aggressive approach which many find infuriating, which leads to outbursts which are then sanctioned whereas the original "provocation" is ignored.
Ok, it would be wonderful if everyone could always be on their best behaviour, unfailingly using a professional tone and generally being kind to one another, but we are humans and sometimes we are just cranky, other times we are deeply invested in an article and may lose our patience with someone who doesn't seem to understand he's making bad edits (cf. WP:RANDY). In short, people do get angry and will sometimes be uncivil. In my opinion, when you have so many different people from so many different cultures working together, this can't be avoided and, yes, I think it should be accepted; what should not be accepted, however, is a pattern of incivility (with the term "incivility" referring to all kinds of uncivil behaviour, not just the "he was mean to me, block him" variety I sometimes see reported on ANI). Then again, how to deal with incivility is another matter entirely: policy and past experience suggest that blocks are not a good way to tackle the problem, dropping warnings written for new users on the talk page of experienced editors is liable to cause frustration (and more incivility) and arbitration cases, as we've seen, are not the answer either. I don't know what a possible working solution would be and think there should probably be an RFC asking the community for input and guidance. But this is something for another time. For now, this dispute is not ripe for arbitration; so I vote to decline the request. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 *It's very difficult to define what "civility" means; while some behaviours are quite obviously uncivil (personal attacks for instance), a lot of the incivility editors come across on Wikipedia is more sneaky and sometimes even widely accepted. There is an example I love making, which in my opinion clearly exemplifies this: sometimes, while discussing the actions of an editor, people will glibly make references to [[WP:NOTTHERAPY]] {{endash}} which is something I find deeply offensive, much more so than, say, calling an editor a troll. And I admit I have occasionally been guilty of using [[WP:CIR]] to explain why I though an editor should be blocked, which isn't much better. Also, Wikipedia encourages a passive-aggressive approach which many find infuriating, which leads to outbursts which are then sanctioned whereas the original "provocation" is ignored.<p> Ok, it would be wonderful if everyone could always be on their best behaviour, unfailingly using a professional tone and generally being kind to one another, but we are humans and sometimes we are just cranky, other times we are deeply invested in an article and may lose our patience with someone who doesn't seem to understand he's making bad edits (cf. [[WP:RANDY]]). In short, people do get angry and will sometimes be uncivil. In my opinion, when you have so many different people from so many different cultures working together, this can't be avoided and, yes, I think it should be accepted; what should not be accepted, however, is a pattern of incivility (with the term "incivility" referring to all kinds of uncivil behaviour, not just the "he was mean to me, block him" variety I sometimes see reported on ANI). Then again, how to deal with incivility is another matter entirely: policy and past experience suggest that blocks are not a good way to tackle the problem, dropping warnings written for new users on the talk page of experienced editors is liable to cause frustration (and more incivility) and arbitration cases, as we've seen, are not the answer either. I don't know what a possible working solution would be and think there should probably be an RFC asking the community for input and guidance. But this is something for another time. For now, this dispute is not ripe for arbitration; so I vote to '''decline''' the request. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 13:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Decline'''. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font>)</small></sup> 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
-== Soccer in Australia ==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Serialjoepsycho|Serialjoepsycho]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) '''at''' 14:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Serialjoepsycho}}, ''filing party''
-*{{admin|John}}
-<!-- The editor filing the case should be included as a party for purposes of notifications. -->
-;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
-<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
-*Diff. 1[[User:Serialjoepsycho|Serialjoepsycho]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 15:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
-*Diff. 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John&diff=598844137&oldid=598838028
-;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
-<!-- Identify prior attempts at dispute resolution here, with links/diffs to the page where the resolution took place. If prior dispute resolution has not been attempted, the reasons for this should be explained in the request for arbitration -->
-*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#RfC_on_naming
-=== Statement by Serialjoepsycho ===
-I came accross this topic in RFC. This has been a contentious issue a number of times. Football, Soccer, and a few other names have been preferred by specific people. This RFC attempts to bind a consensus until 31 August 2015. But as consensus can change I don't feel that it can do that.  I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#Q2_Compromise_discussion] questioned that much to John's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Serialjoepsycho&diff=598739590&oldid=598689708 chargin]. I did not realize how ever that John was an admin until [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#Motion_to_take_this_to_a_higher_Authority here]. As an involved Admin he fails to see his conflict of interest. His failure and unwillingness [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Serialjoepsycho&diff=598837429&oldid=598837317 to recuse] himself amounts to abuse of power and calls in to question any fairness in this RFC.
-I however agree with John. I think this dispute calls for a binding decision. Evidence in the RFC suggests this dispute is old and it has been somewhat disruptive. It should however not be bound by the power of an admin with conflict of interest. [[User:Serialjoepsycho|Serialjoepsycho]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 15:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
-* The reason I bring this here. John's failure to recuse himself makes me feel that he might do it elsewhere in another dispute resolution. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem 2013 RFC]  Arbcom choose an univolved admin to moderate the discussion. Then they choose 3 experienced editors to make a judgement on the consensus. I would just like to this that all sides are fairly represented and halt this dispute for the time being.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|Serialjoepsycho]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 15:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_RfCs per] [[wp:rfc]] an RFC can be ended it moved to another dispute resolution forum, such as mediation, or the RfC participants can agree to end it.
-:I opened a discussion in RFC to move and close this RFC. This was closed as a disputive edit. It questioned the legitamcy of the authority.  A question that was answered with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#Motion_to_take_this_to_a_higher_Authority "I will enforce this by blocking those who threaten the process if necessary, then take my actions to AN/I for review."] Essentially, I will shoot first and ask questions later. I can't actually see that as offering a reasonable answer. It actually leads me to question the level of checks in place to temper adminastrative power, that along with closing a discussion where the primary question was moving and closing that current debate.
-:Johnuniq, If you wouldn't mind could you clarify: "However, anyone wanting to revive a known-disruptive issue that has been settled in yet another RfC should be prepared to explain at ANI why the new discussion is worthwhile." Does that preclude opening a new RFC or other form of dispute resolution without AN/I approval?[[User:Serialjoepsycho|Serialjoepsycho]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-* The question of the legitimacy of the authority should be answered. Can an editor open an RFC to close discussion of a particular topic for a pre-determined amount of time? If the answer is no then the question would become can an Admin open an RFC to close a discussion of a particular topic for a period of time? I can only struggle to call this a community consensus when very little effort is made to bring in the greater community. I can't note the possible abuse that either of those could set a precedent for. I can only imagine what abuse I could do. The things that I could do that could effectively stand as a policy. The risk only lessens with Admins but only because of the lower number of Admins.
-:Any kind of process that will burden discussion with red tape needs to be very controlled and limited. Yes truly the disruption has to stop. But I do not see how that equates to the discussion has to stop. If there is any need to break the back of this dispute it should be done at the top. [[User:Serialjoepsycho|Serialjoepsycho]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 15:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-*I would like to thank all of the arbitrators for your opinions. I was unaware that a RFC could be used in this manner considering that effectively creates policy and that it does little to seek the input of the greater community. I thought surely that policies were in place. I find that the potential for abuse is far greater than the potential for usefulness. I have accordingly taken this to the Village pump (idea lab) to help me construct the proper proposal that I can then later take to the apropriate area of the Village pump for the conisderation of the community.
-:If this can settled out of Arbitration it very well should be. The place were the RFC was posted was evidence to me of how far back this particular dispute goes back to 2006. The need to bind discussion for a year, a need contended in the RFC, is what told me that it need arbitration. And because this goes back to 2006 I felt the conclusion that it be bound was not wrong. That is why here in addition John's abuse of power. To be clear on John's abuse of power: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)&diff=598835761&oldid=598835423 diff]. It would be funny to think that a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rfc#Ending_RfCs can be ended] by the participants agreeing to end it or by moving it to another dispute resolution forum but you can't question if it should be ended or if it should be moved. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Serialjoepsycho&diff=598837429&oldid=598837317 diff] I can hardly see that or questioning it's legitimacy as disruptive. It is disruptive to the process in that it may end the process. It's not disruptive editing. The community has vested interest in the legitimacy of this being questioned. A RFC set to run 14 days advertised in [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture]] would be lucky to get 50 participants. It currently has 12 particapnts. How many users are on the English wikipedia? I agree that a signifigant number of the community could do this and I have no issue with that.
-:And as far as I can tell John is nuetral in this dispute. He is also involved in this dispute and has a vested interest in it's outcome. More so a vested interest in an affirmative to the first question. To keep this fight off AN/I so everyone can go back to the shop and work. The only clear thing here is that this dispute must end. Not how. It doesn't have to end in RFC. It can go to mediation and where ever else. They can without disruption thru all of the dispute resolution process until that land here.
-:I'm not here to get John in trouble. I think we need more people like John. The one thing I can safely say is that John does care. I'm here trying to give this case a fair case. I don't wish to get John censured. My motion was that you take this case. To give it a fair case. After John used his authority to shut my questions out I brought it here. I did not take it to AN/I. If he is so rest assured of the results I have to question any fair chance I have there. But I do expect a fair chance here. I don't have anything to ask of John than to use more restraint when acting as an admin.
-:I don't wish to waste anyones time further if it is still possible that they can work this out them selves. As such I would like to drop my motion.[[User:Serialjoepsycho|Serialjoepsycho]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 23:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Johnuniq ===
-Obviously there will be no Arbcom case as prior dispute resolution steps have not been investigated. However, this request should not go unanswered because "As an involved Admin he fails to see his conflict of interest" (in the request) contains a false accusation of "involved", and an unsubstantiated and misguided charge of COI. There has been an absurd amount of drama concerned with what Wikipedia should call a particular game played in Australia, and John has very helpfully stepped forward in an attempt to provide an organized structure for the protagonists to engage with the issues, rather than continuing to attack each other. Serialjoepsycho may be unaware that if the current discussions at [[WT:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)]] are unable to stop the ongoing bickering that the issues will return to [[WP:ANI]] where the behavior of each of the participants will be assessed. It is very likely that ANI will effectively deal with the situation with topic bans or blocks, as appropriate, and Arbitration will not be required. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 21:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
-*@NE Ent: No, of course an RfC cannot prevent further discussions. However, anyone wanting to revive a known-disruptive issue that has been settled in yet another RfC should be prepared to explain at ANI why the new discussion is worthwhile. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-=== Statement by NE Ent ===
-I get that opening a case likely isn't warranted, but there is an interesting policy question here:  Can an RFC in March 2014 forbid future discussion of a topic by any editor until a pre-determined future date under threat of blocking?? (I think the only reasonable, policy based answer is "no" per [[WP:CCC]]) <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
-=== Statement by [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ===
-This case appears to be about "the name of the game".  There are clearly a few editors who are stubborn about the term to be used for this sport in Australia, and who are willing to clutter the noticeboards.  I don't see any evidence presented by the filing party or anyone else that a reasonable effort has been made to resolve this content dispute.  The filing party has not identified any specific conduct issues that prevent the resolution of the content dispute (the name of the game).  On the one hand, I urge the ArbCom to decline this case, at least for now.  On the other hand, I ask that a few administrators keep watch over this issue and to be willing to make hard blocks for any editor who engages in personal attacks or tries to maintain [[WP:OWN|ownership]] of the name of the game.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-=== Statement by John ===
-Pretty much what Johnuniq said. I stepped into this a few weeks ago with a view to trying to help editors problem-solve a long-running content dispute over what [[the Beautiful Game]] should be called in an Australian context. Prior to that I do not think I have ever edited in this area or expressed any interest in the area. I have not even edited any football/soccer articles in quite a while globally; I think the 2010 World Cup is probably the last time. I am curious to know why the complainant thinks I have a COI or in any way could be considered INVOLVED. The complainant has queried the legitimacy of the attempt I am co-ordinating to resolve this dispute, and I have advised them that if they have serious qualms about it to raise it at AN/I, where my efforts were recently [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Australian sport naming rules; please review this process and my block of Macktheknifeau|endorsed]] by those who commented. The complainant has seemingly dismissed my good-faith attempt to cut this Gordian knot, and in the space of less than 36 hours has progressed from commenting to raising an arbitration case about it. I have made exactly two admin actions in this matter; my 24-hour block of [[User:Macktheknifeau]] was endorsed in the AN/I section above, and my one-week block of [[User:Orestes1984]] which is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Orestes1984|currently being discussed]] at AN/I. As with any of my admin actions I welcome community review of this, but I remain baffled as to how the complainant gets INVOLVED or COI out of this. Of course we will not know unless or until they provide some diffs or links. I would also especially welcome anybody watching this who has time to read and understand [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)|it]]. --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 07:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-=== Statement by [[User:Macktheknifeau]] ===
-I don't know exactly why I was pinged to this, although I presume it was because I'm involved in the RFC, and this type of arbitration discussion looks well above my figurative wikipedia paygrade. From what I can see, it appears to be some kind of attempt to render the RFC invalid or censure John for running it? Neither of those two would be an action I suppose at the current stage. [[User:Macktheknifeau|Macktheknifeau]] ([[User talk:Macktheknifeau|talk]]) 09:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-===Statement by sideways involved Drmies (that's me)===
-Of course this should not be taken up, for all kinds of procedural reasons. I'm merely here to echo {{U|Johnuniq}}'s comment on the false accusation, and to applaud John for taking this issue up in an attempt to quell a whole lot of bickering and disruption. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 18:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
-===Notice of mediation by TransporterMan ===
-I have filed a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Legitimacy_of_the_RfC_on_naming_pending_at_Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#Decision_of_the_Mediation_Committee|Request for Mediation]] on behalf of [[User:Serialjoepsycho|Serialjoepsycho]] in regard to the important question of whether the binding nature of this RFC is legitimate. Others who wish to participate in that mediation as parties may add their names and consents to participate at the request page. Regards, [[User:TransporterMan|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS; color:blue; font-variant:small-caps;">'''TransporterMan'''</span>]] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">TALK</font>]]) 16:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
-=== Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-=== Soccer in Australia: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/7/0/1> ===
-{{anchor|1=Soccer in Australia: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)</small>
-*Awaiting statement from John, but unlikely to accept without further evidence that this has been a disruptive dispute. At first glance, it does not look like something suitable for arbitration. It appears to be a content dispute that should carry on being handled the way it is, with content editors deciding the content. If you want a wider discussion that is binding for a set period of time, the community should be capable of setting up and handling that without ArbCom (or indeed, deciding that such a process would be a waste of time and it would be better to focus on improving the rest of the content of the articles, rather than spend time resolving yet another terminology dispute). Our role (if needed) would be mostly limited to removing editors that were disrupting the process. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 18:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
-**After reading John's statement, and the further comments by others, '''decline'''. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 00:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
-*I'll mull it over a bit more, but my thoughts mirror Carcharoth. Arbitration is the last method of dispute resolution because it is far from ideal; if there's a better option it should be taken, and I don't see serious disruption and violations of policy, more sniping and grouching on all sides. I would note to John that when [[WP:INVOLVED]] is applicable it is far better to simply not use the tools, rather than use them and go to ANI; the latter is far more likely to lead to drama and complaints of admin abuse, even if the action itself is reasonable. <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font>)</small></sup> 21:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
-*This seems like a fairly simple mis-understanding of [[WP:Consensus can change]]. If an well participated RfC shows a strong consensus, that consensus should be respected, not forever, but until a similar RfC shows that the consensus has changed. I don't see the need for a date for enforcement, but at the same time there's been enough disruption to mean that a date is reasonable. I've seen nothing that says John is involved here, nor that he is particularly using admin powers. That makes this a content dispute (or a meta content dispute) - and not one that has been through many dispute resolution processes. As such, I'd '''decline''' this request. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 10:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-*:{{ping|Serialjoepsycho}} Arbcom cannot answer "the question of legitimacy of the authority" because Arbcom doesn't make the rules. It's just simply not a question for Arbcom. That said, ''in my personal opinion'', yes, if consensus is that there is going to be a moratorium on the discussion, then there should be one - that would require a broad discussion from a significant number of Wikipedians though. However, that's not to say that the moratorium could be broken in certain circumstances prior to the end of the time period - but there would have to be a good reason. [[User:Worm That Turned|<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>'''''Worm'''''</span>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User Talk:Worm That Turned|<font color='#060'>talk</font>]]) 08:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
-* '''Inactive''' I'm going to sit this out, &nbsp;[[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 10:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-*What {{U|Carcharoth}} said, but given {{U|John}}'s statement this is a pretty clear '''decline''' as not ripe for arbitration due to lack of other attempts at dispute resolution, and out of scope as it stands as a content dispute. '''[[User:LFaraone|L]]<font color="darkgreen">[[User talk:LFaraone|Faraone]]</font>''' 16:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' There are some interesting issues at play here, but they are issues regarding the nature of consensus. That is something the community needs to handle. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
-*Binding RFCs do not violate our policies and are acceptable (though they should be used sparingly) {{endash}} I know of at at least two of them authorised by ArbCom, so it stands to reason that the community can do just the same. That said, this dispute is not ripe for arbitration yet and so it should be '''declined'''. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml">  '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 10:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
-* '''Decline.''' This is not something I think the committee needs to rule on. [[User:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] [[User talk:AGK#top|[•]]] 12:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' per Beeblebrox. I too find one or two of the issues interesting (not in a "I want to talk about it for the next 4 months" way, but in a "I'm not sure what the best way forward is, I wonder what it should be" way), but they aren't ArbCom issues. No evidence has been presented of John having a COI or being involved.  --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' as the request has been withdrawn. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 10:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)