There has been a constant war over the Asmahan article for I think half a year now. It started out with her nationality and has since then escalated. I was the one that asked for all the meditations/3O above. Arab Cowboy did not listen to the 3O. At the RFC two people showed up, one account and one IP both had never posted at wikipedia before and they used same language as him. The first mediator he did not listen to, the second one he partially listened to after repeated statements from the admin, and even then he continued to edit the article against what was said.

Right now he has changed sections in the early life and elsewhere so they no longer follow the sources, sentences that has previously been agreed upon during mediation. This includes a sentence that an administrator just recently said how it should be. He is also constantly adding pov statements, statements that do not follow the sources and repeating sentences he himself have added several times in the article. He is also removing template sources.

This is very disruptive behavior and editing from him and has been going on for a very, very long time now and it will never stop until action is taken. I'm so sick and tired of this. I have requested mediations and 3O, there is nothing left but his, I really hope you will accept arbitration because if not, I'm afraid this will only continue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by Vassyana: Vassyana its all mixed up, the things that has been previously discussed over and over again during mediation he has now changed against what was agreed upon and this is also against what the sources say, so norn and rsn has not been contacted since it was not required before, but its the same sections that there has been mediation and agreement over before. I have sought administrator assistance by CIreland and Al Ameer son. (and also have tried to get help from CactusWriter) This problem can not be solved without arbitration, several mediations have failed, user Arab Cowboy is changing sentences that was agreed upon during mediation's, and this is continuing after half a year. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to statement by Arab Cowboy: What Arab Cowboy is saying here below is not true, the reason why the mediation with Diaa failed was because of several times during the mediation Arab Cowboy went ahead and changed several areas of the article that had not been agreed upon during the mediation. Some can bee seen here: [1][2] Diaa:"I find what AC did with changing everything without even respecting my input shows much disrespect to my instructions" Arab Cowboy did this several times and this is the reason why Diaa left. These "sneak edits" that Arab Cowboy is accusing me of is not true and has been explained many times at the talkpage [3]yet he keeps on repeating it. After cactus reverted the article for massive copyrighted sections mostly added by Arab Cowboy, Arab Cowboy has changed non-plagiarized sections so they no longer follow what was agreed during mediation or what the sources say, he has not as he says done any "laborious efforts to rebuild the article without plagiarism".. the sections in question was already re-written without plagiarism and added to the article including one sentence that admin cactus who is an expert on plagiarism suggested.[4] And his claims here below that I have called people "Jews like you..." is a complete false statement that has never happened.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second response to statement by Arab Cowboy: Arab Cowboys repeated accusations are false and as I have written above he keeps on repeating the same thing over and over again although this has already been proven to not be true, the "four sneak edits" he is accusing me of: [5] [6] [7] Diaas comment in Arab Cowboys post was in response and based on him believing the false accusations by Arab Cowboy of "four sneak edits". Diaa left the mediation because of the behavior of Arab Cowboy. When Arab Cowboy did not like the outcome of the mediation he started editing the article against agreements at the talkpage. He did not just ad things but he removed and changed massive things that had not been agreed upon at the talkpage. The mediation was almost over and Diaa asked for adding of reffs to the article: [8] Here Arab Cowboy asks for one day to ad the reffs and Diaa gives him one day to ad them [9] The very next day he did these massive changes to the article: [10][11] which caused the mediation to collapse.

Diaa (bless his heart) came back and tried to help: [12] [13] "I find what AC did with changing everything without even respecting my input shows much disrespect to my instructions, which was part of my decision to abstain from any mediation for a while." "I told you to add reffs before I remove all unreffed stuff to clear things. You added more than reffs." Diaa gave me some time to edit the article to fix and bring back texts that Arab Cowboy had removed and changed without approval at the mediation,[14] two hours later Arab Cowboy once again started changing the things that I had just fixed with mediator Diaas permission [15] This is what caused Diaa to leave.[16]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by CactusWriter: Concerning the categories in the other articles, when I wanted to remove a newly added category, Egypt stub and WP Egypt from the Atrash article (added by Arab Cowboy) admin Cactus told me to go to WP Egypt, [17] I did that and they agreed with me and they themselves removed it. [18] Then when Arab Cowboy wanted to delete categorizes from several Syrian related articles, people of Syrian descent, after having started several edit wars Cactus told him to make a post at WP Egypt and wait for consensus. [19] He did not get support from WP Egypt,[20][21][22][23] yet he right away started to delete them from the articles [24] [25] [26]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arab Cowboy

I did not wish to engage in personal attacks, but given Supreme Deliciousness's statements above, I will state that he is a flat out, unabashed LIAR. What is the subject of this artbitration now? What is this all about? What specifically are we arbitrating? Is there no end to this childish nagging? Do you understand the extent of the resources that you have wasted, not just my own, but of countless other editors, admins, and mediators?

This whole conflict is the result of SD's agenda of inserting "Syrian" into Egyptian and other articles. Admin Cactus has told him repeatedly that these insertions do and will continue to antagonize Egyptians and others. SD will only not stop voluntarily; he must be banned from editing Egyptian articles. He's inserted his "Syrian" agenda into all of these articles: Tamer Hosny, Omar Sharif, Anwar Wagdi and Farid al-Atrash. This will not be tolerated. I do not care if I am also banned from editing Syrian articles; I do nothing to antagonize others.

The so-called meditaor HelloAnnyong was brought over to the article by SD. In addition to his negligence, HelloAnnyong has proven to be totally allied with SD and his opinions could not be taken as reliable. I will not accept HelloAnnyong's input into this arbitration. When two other editors contributed to the RfC, SD and HelloAnnyong collaboratively filed two SPI reports, which were decided as "declined" and "unrelated". Yet, SD has not stopped calling those editors my sock-puppets. Diaa's mediation did not continue because SD was sneaking edits past Diaa during a period when he had been specifically instructed to stop editing. Al Ameer's mediation was successful, but following its conclusion, SD filed a plagiarism report against the article - he had personally been constantly nagging that as little as single words were not close enough to the sources, and as soon as they were close enough to his liking, he filed a plagiarism report. Admin Cactus reverted the whole article back to 11 July as a result, and all mediation efforts and our 3 months' work was destroyed. And now, after laborious efforts to rebuild the article without plagiarism, SD claims that the article is not close enough to the sources. If we bring it back closer to the sources, he will file another complaint claiming plagiarism. Where is this going to stop? This is a huge waste of resources for editors and administrators, all to serve SD's secret "Syrian" agenda. He has called people, "Jews like you..." and they have called him back, "You are a disgrace to Wikipedia, if not the human race..." He has been fooling admins for so long by his constant childish nagging. Go ahead, if you wish, and start another round of "arbitration"... You are wasting your time. SD will not stop until he is topic banned.

Cheers, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Statement by CactusWriter

I support the topic ban. I am willing to accept a ban from editing "Syrian" srticles if User Supreme Deliciousness is simultaneously banned from editing "Egyptian" articles. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Statement by Supreme Deliciouness

In reference to how Diaa's mediation ended, Diaa has stated the following: "AC I instructed the two of you not to edit freely, the two of you ignored my instructions, the two of you were at fault, I didn't see those edits after the 24 hour edit time." Diaa had not seen SD's sneaky edits that he had made after the 24-hour free edit period, and the No-Edit directive from Diaa. When I started to edit in response to sneaky edits and Diaa's inaction to them (because he had not seen SD's edits), SD began his trademark complaints that I was freely editing the article. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HelloAnnyong

I don't have a whole lot to say, but there are some things that I think should be mentioned. First, I got involved in all this from a listing I saw on WP:3O, and from there it pretty much spiraled out of control. While I was active on the page, we really did try to get some outside help. There were at least five separate requests on AN and ANI for help, all with limited results. There were several blocks issued to both users for edit warring, but that doesn't seem to have helped at all.

It should be noted, I think, that both Arab Cowboy and Supreme Deliciousness have taken this battle to a number of other pages, including Tamer Hosny, Omar Sharif, Anwar Wagdi and Farid al-Atrash. And although a number of other people have gotten involved to try to resolve this, it seems as if nothing has helped. Awhile after I became involved, Nefer Tweety, a new user, showed up and started battling against Supreme Deliciousness on the exact same pages. So we took it to WP:SPI (archive) on the advice of another editor, though it turned out to be false. (I see that that user is still at it.) Perhaps s/he should also be included on this request.

I left the page a month ago after getting repeatedly slammed by Arab Cowboy. To be honest, I've moved on and I don't really want to have anything to do with this page anymore. If anything I wrote above needs clarification, then I'll do as such. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CactusWriter

After arriving at Asmahan to resolve a report filed at WP:Copyright Problems, I spent three weeks between these two editors while they argued over even the most minor edits in a number of articles. I am impressed only by the previous patience shown by numerous mediators and administrators. User:Arab Cowboy has been blocked five times in only three months for edit warring. (this includes twice in June while an unregistered IP [27]). User:Supreme Deliciousness has been blocked once and warned multiple times for contentious editing, POV pushing, incivility and inflammatory remarks.

I agree with HelloAnnyong. This an extended content dispute between two editors which has spilled across Asmahan, Atrash, Tamer Hosny, Anwar Wagdi, Farid al-Atrash, Soad Hosny and Omar Sharif. The clash results from, IMO, User:Supreme Deliciousness stressing Syrian connections at the expense or to the detriment of other nationalities; and User:Arab Cowboy stressing Egyptian connections at the expense or to the detriment of Syrian background; while both editors cherry-pick sources (as well as mediator statements) to push point of view.

When pressed by administrators, they have made some efforts to seek outside opinion or consensus (as with their latest requests at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt). However, their actions continue to devolve into quick reversions and in-fighting. My thought, which I expressed to each editor, was that they were both on the verge of topic bans.

If, at this point, further info or diffs are required, let me know. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

Comment. Waiting on a statement from Arab Cowboy. Also, could you please inform the previous mediators and outside commenters about this request so they may have an opportunity to comment on the request? I have a few questions as well. Have any of the content noticeboards been used to solicit further outside input, such as the no original research noticeboard or reliable sources noticeboard? Has anyone sought administrator assistance in resolving the conduct concerns at the administrators' and/or incidents noticeboards? What prevents this from being resolved at the community level, thus requiring arbitration? --Vassyana (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add Nefer Tweety to the list of parties and inform them of this request. If there are any other editors directly involved in this dispute, please make sure they are added and informed. Vassyana (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Accept. HelloAnnyong's statement and links, along with a closer look at article discussions, make it clear to me that insisting on further noticeboard usage will only prolong and worsen this dispute. There are certainly conduct issues for us to examine. Vassyana (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - the fact that the dispute has spilled over into other articles, and that noticeboard threads have seemingly not helped, means that a full review of what happened here and a resolution to the dispute, is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept due to the failure of other means to resolve the dispute, and its escalating nature. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Wizardman 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept to look at the behavior of both parties. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per my colleagues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 *'''Accept''' to look at the behavior of both parties. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Accept''' per my colleagues. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
-==Scope of NLT==
-'''Initiated by ''' [[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] '''at''' 11:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Involved parties ===
-<!-- use {{admin|username}} if the party is an administrator -->
-*{{userlinks|Lambiam}}, ''filing party''
-*{{userlinks|Milomedes}}
-*{{userlinks|Erik9}}
-*{{admin|Jayron32}}
-<!-- 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. -->
-*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMilomedes&diff=311261872&oldid=309566382 notification of Milomedes]
-*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErik9&diff=311261949&oldid=311207592 notification of Erik9]
-*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJayron32&diff=311261992&oldid=311012491 notification of Jayron32]
-;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 -->
-*Lambiam (filing party) has extensively but unsuccessfully argued the case at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes]]
-=== Statement by Lambiam (filing party) ===
-On August 22, 2009 [[User:Milomedes|Milomedes]] (Milo)  contributed a comment to an MfD discussion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jack_Merridew/Blood_and_Roses&diff=prev&oldid=309400636] This comment was reported on [[WP:ANI]] by [[User:Erik9|Erik9]] as a violation of the [[WP:No legal threats|No legal threats]] policy (NLT).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=309527602] Thereupon Milo was  indefinitely blocked by [[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Milomedes] The argumentation for the block was supported by several other administrators. For reasons unknown to me, Milo has not contested the block.
-In general, a user is only blocked for repeating a certain disruptive pattern of behaviour in spite of having been warned increasingly strongly several times, and only in egregious cases, after several temporary blocks have not resulted in improvement, for an indefinite time. Blocks for violation of NLT are an exception to the rule: the offending user is generally indef blocked until the legal threat occasioning the block is retracted. The rationale for this exceptional effect of NLT is the disruption caused by the threat of an impending institution of legal action. On the other hand, there are legitimate warnings, in which a user is warned their actions may create a legal liability, but in which the user warning for this possible consequence is not a party in a possible legal action and obviously not threatening to institute action themselves.
-The distinction between threats and warnings should be clear; if the boundary becomes blurred, this will make it hazardous to issue legitimate warnings. My contention is that Milo's comment (independent of one's judgement about its legitimacy) was not a threat but a warning, and that the boundary was crossed in interpreting it as a violation of NLT.
-In summary, my opinion is that the scope of NLT is narrow for good reasons and does not apply to Milo's comment, and that, if let stand, this application of the policy sets a precedent that dangerously widens the scope of NLT beyond its original intention as well as its historic application – dangerously in the sense that such widening would be to the detriment of the project. For that reason I am seeking a ruling by ArbCom to the effect that this specification application of the policy was an "error of law". &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 11:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-;Should Milo have retracted the legal threat?
-It is, in general, not possible to retract a non-existing threat. But perhaps Milo should have clarified the issue and stated his comment was not meant to be a legal threat. As phrased by Coren below (and in different but similar ways in the WP:ANI thread): "Milomedes need but clarify the intent of his statement (that is, state unequivocally that he has no intent to pursue legal action) to be unblocked immediately and unconditionally".
-But please note that ''even before being reported on'', Milo had already declared:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jack_Merridew/Blood_and_Roses&diff=prev&oldid=309405064]
-<blockquote>If you actually read WP:NLT you'll see that it applies to people who consider themselves to be a victim. It also reads, ''"A polite report of a legal problem such as defamation or copyright infringement is not a threat..." "'' <u>I'm simply warning you of your theoretical legal problem that has nothing to do with me.</u> See [[shooting the messenger]] fallacy.</blockquote>
-[Emphasis by underlining is mine. --L.] I can only read this as an unequivocal statement that Milo has no intent to pursue legal action. The quotation given above was included in the original report by Erik9 and so can hardly have escaped attention; however, it was brushed aside as [[WP:wikilawyering|wikilawyering]]. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 15:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-;Was Milo's comment intimidating?
-It is not clear to me that this question is actually relevant to the case: also a legitimate warning, to be effective, should be intimidating in the sense that it dissuades users from pursuing (or refraining from) certain actions by pointing out possible unpleasant consequences. So this cannot be the lithmus test, and it must not be concluded that a warning is not legitimate, or is not a warning but a threat, simply because it has a dissuasive intent. That being said, in defense of the application of NLT to this case it has been said or suggested that several users, and in any case Erik9, felt intimidated by Milo. However, ''there is no actual evidence that anyone felt intimidated at any time''. After Milo's comment Erik9 participated in the MfD discussion as before, and never raised an objection to his comment. In bringing the case to [[WP:ANI]], which was after the MfD discussion had wound down and therefore too late to have any effect, Erik9 stated that Milo "made the following [[Wikipedia:No legal threats|legal threat]] in an apparent attempt to intimidate editors who were claiming that [[User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses]] may constitute a copyright violation". If several users felt intimidated, yes, then it was apparently intimidating. If several users, not themselves intimidated, only felt that Milo's comment was an ''attempt'' at intimidation, then no, that by itself does not make it intimidating. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 22:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Jack Merridew ===
-The statement amounted, at most, to a comment about a hypothetical legal action; an action that *I* conceivably could initiate. I intend no legal action here and don't really see any legal threats in any of this. Milo should be unblocked, methinks. Cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 11:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-NE2 means [[User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses]], of course, which has been to DRV. Twice. Links on the page. nb: I'm off-wiki for the next three days ;) Cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 13:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-* <span class="plainlinks">[http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/User%3AJack_Merridew/Blood_and_Roses pageviews]</span> ;)
-Too much to read @breakfast. Sort the immediate issue by Milo stating that no legal threat was intended? (Off to plane;) Cheers, [[User:Jack Merridew|Jack Merridew]] 03:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Statement by NE2 ===
-Oh god, this is still going on? Milo's comment was wrong on several levels. Whether a "legal threat" is one of those levels, or whether that wrongness is enough for a block, is not something I know. Just delete this obvious violation of [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Licensing_policy Resolution:Licensing policy], unblock Milo, and get on with more important stuff. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-* <span class="plainlinks">[http://stats.grok.se/en/200908/Http%3A//www.google.com/ pageviews]</span> ;)
-=== Statement by Jayron32 ===
-Responding to a thread at [[WP:ANI]], now archived at [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal_threats_by_Milomedes]], several editors noted that Milomedes had issued a clear legal threat, the important bit of which is the clear threat of potential legal proceedings to coerce others to back down from their side of a debate, and let one "win" based on the threat of legal proceedings.  The clear threat occured in this dif: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jack_Merridew/Blood_and_Roses&diff=prev&oldid=309400636], where he says, in part, "If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of silver rule courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom."  In other words, if you do not commit some action, you could be taken to court and outed.  The couching of a threat in the "hypothetical" (you could...), is not all that compelling in ameliorating the threat.  The important thing here is that he expresses a clear desire for others to do something "I suggest that you strike your claim..." and states clear threat if legal proceedings for NOT doing what he wants "If not striking... you could be [taken to court]"  That is an unacceptable use of a threat to influence others, and a clear violation of NLT.  Milomedes was not immediately blocked for these threats, but given the chance to take them back or strike them.  Milomedes was perfectly aware of the discussion at ANI, insofar as he commented at least half a dozen times.  He makes no real defense of clarification at ANI, he merely denies that his comments constitute a legal threat "Everything looks ok to me, no violations of any kind by me anyway. A very interesting debate." and then claims that because the difs of the legal threat had been provided by someone he was previously in a conflict with, he did not have to clarify or explain himself: "I'll be glad to discuss the context of this passage with someone else, but since we have a personal conflict, please move on."  When two OTHER editors, who he had not ever been involved with, noted that they also thought that Milomedes had violated the NLT policy, Milomedes AGAIN dodged the issue "Hi, BB. I enjoyed our last discussion, so we get along fine. So, you've decided that I'm guilty without hearing the argument?" and "Are you willing to discuss my reasoning, or have you made up your mind?"  The deal is, Milomedes never addressed the legal threat in that thread.  He deflected the issue to some conflict over an MFD, and made no direct attempt to either clarify or explain or redact his legal threat.  Based on the initial legal threat, the clear view by several long-time editors that this was a violation, and most compellingly the refusal of Milomedes to acknoweledge or address the problem, I indefiniately blocked him.  I should note that I left clear instructions when I blocked him which stated that all he needed to do was to redact his legal threat, and he could be unblocked by any admin without first consulting me.  See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMilomedes&diff=309554031&oldid=309539752].  I am not sure why this is being arbitrated at this point, since Milomedes has made no attempt to request an unblock for himself, redact his legal threat, or even give a reasonable explanation which would change the prevailing interpretation of his statements.  I am not certain how I would have handled this differently, but if Milomedes himself came forward, requested an unblock, and stated that he would redact his legal threat, I would be the first to unblock him myself.  He has not done so since being blocked, so I don't know how we can move forward on this.  --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 13:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Erik9 ===
-[[Wikipedia:No legal threats]] is not to be [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|wikilawyered]] via the simple artifice of making legal threats on behalf of third parties. Comments such as <blockquote>If you can't supply believable evidence, I suggest that you strike your claim. If not striking as a matter of [[silver rule]] courtesy that you wouldn't want someone else to do the same thing to you, consider that in theory, all five of you could be pseudonym-outed and face a jury in a Florida civil courtroom.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jack_Merridew/Blood_and_Roses&diff=prev&oldid=309400636]</blockquote>are very clearly intended as threats of legal action for the purpose of intimidating editors, and are not, by any conceivable stretching of the term, "legitimate warnings". Given the straightforward nature of this case, I suggest that the Committee summarily endorse the indefinite block of Milomedes via motion. [[User:Erik9|Erik9]] ([[User talk:Erik9|talk]]) 15:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-:In light of MastCell's statement below, I would strongly oppose the unblocking of Milomedes even if he were to retract the particular comment at issue here, given his extensive history of similar misconduct. If a full case is needed to effectuate a permanent, unconditional site ban, then I recommend acceptance. [[User:Erik9|Erik9]] ([[User talk:Erik9|talk]]) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Lar ===
-I got notified, so here I am, I guess, although I don't think I'm involved. Since I'm here you get to hear my opinion. :) What I think is being asked here is not a specific ruling that Milo needs to be unblocked, but a ruling on whether the NLT principle was applied correctly or not, but I could be wrong. These are two different questions, even though the direct practical effect of answering them is the same (Milo stays blocked or Milo gets unblocked)
-I spoke out during the AN/I thread saying that I personally didn't think that Milo made a threat. But I think our NLT is clear enough. See [[Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats]] ... if sufficient numbers of people think something appears to be a threat, it ''needs to be clarified'' whether it is or not. And it needs to be clarified to the satisfaction of ''those'' people, the ones who perceived it that way, not just to the satisfaction of people who didn't think it was a threat in the first place. Coren: If ArbCom were to decline this case in a way that says ArbCom feels the current wording of NLT is clear enough, that seems a good outcome. If they wished a motion so stating, also good. But a decline on procedural grounds might not be so good if there really is an ambiguity in need of clarification. (I'm not sure there is myself, but if there was)
-As to the particulars: Although Lambian is arging that Milo didn't make a threat, and did in fact clarify that he didn't, it doesn't seem to satisfy the complainant, Erik9, nor the blocking admin, Jayron32. So... if we assume these are reasonable folk, (and I see nothing wrong with the block given the information available at the time) Milo has more to do, in my view, if he wishes to be unblocked. Whether he wishes to or not is unclear. If I am right about what Lambian wants, that's not particularly relevant to what is being asked of ArbCom, though. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 15:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-:In view of the additional incidents that MastCell has brought up (and thanks for a thorough job there, M), while I still feel a (maximally charitable) possible interpretation of what Milo said is that it's not a threat... the pattern here is damning. The spirit of collegiality seems to be violated in all those incidents, and a considerable change in approach is needed, not just a recitation of a "I didn't mean it" mantra, before an unblock makes sense. That's completely handle-able by the community, ArbCom need not comment on that if they don't wish to... but I'd again say that perhaps some comment/finding that the block was within the NLT policy might be helpful. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 02:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-::A comment on NYB's extended comment, where he says ''"Short of an unusual scenario that I cannot currently imagine, if it ever came to my attention that something in my userspace was causing even a fraction of the unhappiness and expenditure of time and effort as this MfD and its sequel, I would delete it immediately in the interest of collegiality."''... it's always dangerous to speculate on motive, but the MfD and the DRV (at least partially) morphed from relatively routine into a discussion of the NFCC and the WMF role in determining it and a number of other things that transcended one page. If the page went away, the motivation for sorting out what appears to be a significant hole in policy would go away too. Also, the page itself was removed once before, was gone for almost 2 years, and then came back (because of moves, the history is a bit tangled, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJack_Merridew%2FBlood_and_Roses&action=history page revisions],  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AJack+Merridew%2FBlood+and+Roses page log], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADavenbelle%2Fsidebar&action=history predecessor revisions] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADavenbelle%2Fsidebar&action=history predecessor log] ), restored by Casliber, no less. So I think Jack could be forgiven for leaving the page around to foster discussion, if that in fact was what he was thinking. ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Protonk ===
-Like Lar above, I'm not party to this, but I was notified, so I'll say my piece.  Erik 9 gets things ''absolutely'' correct.  Threats of legal action to not become friendly bits of advice by merely using the passive voice.  I explained things rather crudely at the AN/I thread, but the argument goes something like this: Legal threats have a corollary in physical threats.  A threat of physical violence does not immediately become a warning if the words "I will do physical harm to you" are replaced with "physical harm could come to you". [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 16:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-*<small>Statement edited in order to make sense. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 23:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
-=== Statement by Shell Kinney ===
-I was notified of this case due to commenting on the ANI thread and I'm honestly at a loss to imagine what's being asked of the Committee here.  On ANI quite a few of the respondents felt that Milo's statement could be taken as an attempt to intimidate editors who disagreed with his position in the deletion discussion with a legal threat.  While I probably wouldn't have blocked, I believe I  mentioned that he should take much more care in the future if his intent was a friendly warning.  Instead of addressing these concerns, Milo was dismissive and didn't seem to be interested in confirming that it was only intended as a friendly warning; he was blocked until such time as he confirmed that this was not intended as a threat.<p>With such a simple solution, I'm at a loss for why Lambian has continued debating whether or not the "threat" was actually a threat or not.  Several reasonable folks thought it was; only Milo can clear this up. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]]   <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 20:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Baseball Bugs ===
-Milo made comments to Erik that were cloaked in legalese and which he found intimidating. That's the litmus test - the effect on its target. It doesn't matter that Milo doesn't think Erik should feel intimidated. He was. It's a legal threat, and the block should stay until Milo repudiates his intimidating comments. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 21:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-:The additional info reported below, seals the deal. He's a repeat offender of such attempts at intimidation, and he should stay blocked until, at the very least, he rescinds ''all'' such previous comments and pledges not to do it again. One more thing: What is Lambiam's personal interest in this? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Statement by MastCell ===
-{{user|Milomedes}} has a recurring tendency to resort to bullying, threats, and intimidation in response to disagreement. Since I've previously had a conflict with him, I'll let the diffs do the talking. I'll break them down into three categories:
-;Threats to employ wikiprocess
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndy_Murray&diff=302665269&oldid=302646968 "I've gotten just a hint at WT:EL that some number of other editors would testify against you for their own reasons. Be wise and keep me disinterested with your future good behavior."] (To [[User:WhatamIdoing]])
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Murray&diff=prev&oldid=304393781 "I suggest you take up my generous offer... Write another PA and it could go hard for you, having failed to show contrition here."] (To [[User:Ash]])
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Murray&diff=prev&oldid=304368146 "Remember, it only takes two signatures to file an RfC/U on you. I think that there are at least two, and possibly as many as five signatures available."] (To [[User:TheRedPenOfDoom]])
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broda_Otto_Barnes&diff=next&oldid=287956281 "If necessary, I'm prepared to sign an RFC/U on you, though I hope it won't come to that. You might or not 'win' an RFC/U, but I think you will not come out of it smelling good, and no doubt it would increase your previously expressed sense of being victimized... I would prefer to not encourage your less reasonable opponents to take you to RFC/U/2 and /3, where you might eventually lose if your present attitude further deteriorates."] (To me)
-;Threats involving defamation
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:External_links&diff=prev&oldid=302551819 "Previously you defamed an out editor in another section on this page... . A PA by careless accusation is bad enough, but a careless defamation is a threat to the Wikimedia Foundation. Even worse, you don't show any sign of contrition, retraction, or reforming."] (to [[User:2005]])
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broda_Otto_Barnes&diff=prev&oldid=289840978 "Since you clearly don't understand the gravity of accidentally defaming a professional (libel per quod), you shouldn't be commenting on it, or worse, trivializing it."] (to [[User:Verbal]])
-**When asked to elaborate: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broda_Otto_Barnes&diff=prev&oldid=289845529 "Sorry, but it would be a further WP:BLP violation to explain what you got wrong. Some things in life just have to remain a mystery."]
-;Threats to report "vandalism"
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broda_Otto_Barnes&diff=prev&oldid=289653873 "So here's what's could happen if non-selective content removal happens again: Next time, with both parties having been warned, it's probably going to be clear-cut content removal vandalism, and I will have these options... Add another charge to a private draft RFC/U, give the vandal enough rope, and wait while doing real world."] (to me)
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broda_Otto_Barnes&diff=prev&oldid=289776991 "...you will be committing and attempting to cover up vandalism the next time you unselectively revert. Consider yourself warned."] (to me)
-* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broda_Otto_Barnes&diff=prev&oldid=289839326 "If however, you unselectively revert or don't provide an explanation, you will be committing and attempting to cover up content removal vandalism. Consider yourself warned... When I work on this again, edit by the rules and this issue won't be a problem."] (To [[User:Verbal]])
-I'd draw three conclusions. One, this is not the first time that Milo has wielded the club of defamation to try to bend other editors to his position. Two, the current "legal threat" is best viewed not in isolation, but as part of a recurring pattern of threats, bullying, and attempted intimidation in response to disagreement. Some of those threats involve wikilitigation, and some real-life accusations of defamation. And thirdly, changes to [[WP:NLT]], and its specific application, might best discussed at AN (where there was strong consensus for this block) and on [[Wikipedia talk:No legal threats|the relevant projectspace talk page]].
-If Milo clearly intended no legal threat, then an unblock may be appropriate by the letter of the policy. However, in terms of the spirit of the policy - which I understand to be aimed in part at preventing attempted intimidation of other editors - it may be worth viewing the current episode in light of the context described above.
-Again, for the sake of disclosure, I have had a conflict with Milo at [[Broda Otto Barnes]] and do not wish to present myself as a neutral party here; hence the diffs. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Dayewalker ===
-I'm not named, but I was informed of this on my talk page. I was the one who initially suggested ending the discussion at ANI and blocking Milo for the clear legal threat, and feel like I should reiterate my feelings here.
-To clarify, I don't think Milo was threatening that he would sue. I don't even see that as a possibility. However, it seems very clear that he intended his words to intimidate, to threaten people who disagreed with him with the possibility they could be served with legal action. To me, the primary purpose of NLT is not to prevent lawsuits. The chance of a lawsuit being filed because of something on wikipedia is very slim, and should be handled by Godwin anyway. NLT is there to protect people, especially new editors, from being bullied and intimidated by the threat of legal action. Speculating that editors with differing opinions are going to be sued is a bully's tactic, and NLT should be in effect to protect new editors who could be scared off from the project.
-When this discussion started, Milo refused to directly address the questions, began to wikilawyer about NLT, then started telling us which editors he'd be willing to discuss this matter with and which he would ignore. He didn't take his conduct seriously, and brushed off the questions and concerns of other editors. I have no problems whatsoever with the block, nor would I have a problem with an unblock and acknowledgement that his comments could have been taken as legal threats. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 02:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Statement by Sjakkalle ===
-I'll just chime in since the diff which Milomedes was blocked over was in response to a vote I entered on the MFD. My [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jack_Merridew/Blood_and_Roses&diff=prev&oldid=309402075 response] to the statement at that time was amending the sentence slightly (it was not a big deal), and caution Milomedes that I found his "warning" of being outed and sued in a Florida courtroom to be "very close to, if not over, the line of violating our policy on [[WP:NLT|legal threats]]". I was unaware of the following ANI discussion, until after Milomedes had been blocked for it. I have not sought any block of Milomedes, and I don't have strong objections to unblocking. I did find his conduct somewhat rude, responding to one of my posts with a facepalm image [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Jack_Merridew/Blood_and_Roses&diff=next&oldid=309423743] as a way of saying "you are stupid" is not very nice, but that is an other story. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-===Statement by Stifle===
-Maybe I'm being dense, but wouldn't this be better resolved by the concerned users stating "I withdraw any legal threats I may have made during the period (date) to (date)" than by a month-long ArbCom case? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Clerk notes ===
-:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
-*Milomedes is currently indef blocked and has not edited since Aug 23, should anything be done (email, temp unblock, etc) for his participation in this request? '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-:Being mathematically impossible to open, I'll be closing in a day or so. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 21:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
-=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/3) ===
-*Awaiting further statements. Also, Milomedes has contacted the Arbitration Committee regarding his block by e-mail, independent of this request, and I will take his input there into account. At present, and subject to further input, I am not convinced that a full arbitration case will be necessary to address this matter, but I do anticipate having some comments and suggestions for how these issues might be addressed. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 13:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-**'''Decline''', without prejudice to consideration of Milomedes' unblock request by the ban appeals subcommittee. Extended comments in separate section below. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
-*As a simple comment: ''part'' of the reason of NLT is to not only ensure that possible legal proceedings are not hindered or made worse by continued participation, but is ''also'' meant to avoid threats of legal actions being used to intimidate editors or stifle discussion.<p>That being said, I note that Milomedes need but clarify the intent of his statement (that is, state unequivocally that he has no intent to pursue legal action) to be unblocked immediately and unconditionally; this makes me doubt that the matter need be handled by the committee at all, and certainly not at this time.  &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 13:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-*:I ''obviously'' cannot speak for the committee here, but I can state without a doubt that if a finding or fact or motion was made as to the propriety of the block per NLT, ''I'' would vote that it clearly was correct &mdash; especially given the background.  &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Coren|Coren]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 10:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-*'''Decline''' <s>'''More input'''</s> per Coren and NYB<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 20:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
-*Am wary of the 'No Legal Threats' policy being used as an overly blunt instrument here. All sides should be attempting to de-escalate this. If Milomedes has a history of quasi-legal rhetoric and posturing, then that does need to be addressed, but the NLT policy is correctly used for specific legal threats, not posturing (which this clearly was). Equally, admins administering NLT blocks should not make demands to be met before unblocking, but should calmly explain what is needed and play their part in de-escalating the situation. I also agree with the comment made in the admin noticeboard thread that too many people piling in with their opinions made the situation worse. What was needed was a calm conversation between the blocking admin and the person who was blocked. Everyone else commenting in all likelihood only served to inflame the situation. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 01:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-**Erik9, as regards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=311391590&oldid=311384512 this comment], there may well be a case to examine Milomedes's conduct, but Milomedes will almost certainly be unblocked to present a defence if a case is accepted (and he ''will'' be unblocked if he retracts what he said - regardless of whether it was a true legal threat or quasi-legal posturing). What will not happen is leaving him blocked while a case is heard. Calling for a "permanent, unconditional site ban" is not helpful here, and is only escalating the dispute. This is Milomedes's first-ever block. He has edited since May 2005. There is no request for comment on his conduct. He may not be a perfect editor, but what I see here is an over-reaction to his quasi-legal posturing, and admins and other editors who should know better, escalating the dispute. Of course Milomedes should retract what he said and get off his high horse, but others need to get off their high horses as well. This was a minor dispute that could have been handled by a block, shutting down the noticeboard thread much earlier, and letting Milomedes calm down and file the necessary retraction in an unblock request a few days later. There is no need to force Milomedes to agree that this was a legal threat (though he should acknowledge that others saw it as a legal threat, and he should be prepared to discuss the matter in the appropriate way after retracting his initial statement). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 03:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-***My view is that Milomedes should retract what he said (but no more demands of him should be made than that) and then be unblocked, and that MastCell should start a request for comments to address the concerns he raises above (which were probably raised in the wrong venue at the wrong time), and that others should allow Milomedes the chance to say something in his defence, and to state how he would change his conduct, before those others pile on with comments. If MastCell wishes to take his concerns further, he should ask Jayron32 to unblock first, or wait until the NLT aspect of this is resolved. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 08:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
-*The block of Jayron32 was appropriate and within the NLT policy. Milomedes had that opportunity at ANI but failed to clarify anything which would make the community feel at ease. I agree with the view that the NLT policy exist to protect editors from being threatened and bullied. Milomedes still need to clarify his position if he needs any unblock. Milomedes needs to clarify that the last incident was ''not'' intended to be serious. That said, and looking at the primary evidence brought by [[user:MastCell]], I can see that there is an apparent trend of using different kinds of threats in the Wikipedia daily dealing with others. That is of course totally unacceptable. If Milomedes needs to get back editing he needs to both clarify his position and promise the community not to use such methods to gain an argument or a position again. Whatever is the case, his account should be unblocked (for this purpose alone) to hear about his thoughts. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold"><sup>''Wiki me up''® </sup></font>]]</small> 04:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. I see no reason for the Arbitration Committee to take this up. Determining the proper scope of the NLT policy is a matter for the community to decide, if clarification is required. The block itself is also perfectly within the reach of the community to resolve with no indication that any particular factors would impede the process. --[[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 08:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. either community or BASC (of which I am a member) can deal with it. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
-*'''Decline'''. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#060">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] 20:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
-====Extended arbitrator comment====
-My review of this request has led me to form some views that I wish to outline here because they may be helpful not only in this situation but future similar ones. Arbitrators do not usually go on at this length, which is a Very Good Thing, but I hope an analysis of this dispute will be helpful to all concerned. It do not believe I should have to vote to open a case that would last for weeks so that I would have a chance to explain my analysis.
-This dispute began when an editor placed a large block quote of text from a copyrighted book on a page in his userspace. The page was taken to MfD, where it was relisted and eventually closed as "no consensus." The MfDs were hotly contested and consumed a great deal of the community's time and effort.
-Because the quoted material was not free content, any authorization to reproduce it must be under the doctrine of fair use. The En-Wiki fair use guidelines historically have not addressed at length issues relating to text, as opposed to files (images and sounds), so it was unclear to some users how the appropriateness of this content should be evaluated. However, the general factors to be taken into account in considering what is or isn't fair use are more or less the same for text as they are for files.
-(Incidentally, the fact that limited use of copyrighted text is governed by fair use is often overlooked in discussions of whether En-Wiki should change to a "no fair use" policy, and when some other language Wikipedias are described as "free-content only." Every time we quote a line of poetry, or summarize the plot of a recent film or novel, we are making an implicit fair use claim.)
-Disagreements over how much fair use is too much have been part of Wikipedia since it began, and the MfD confirmed that the same split of views that can exist as to uses of images translate into the text context as well (although our rafts of overly complicated rules on the use of fair-use images probably cannot readily be adapted for text, which is just as well). We generally are much less tolerant of fair-use images in userspace than in articles. To the extent this rule rests upon a sound foundation, I'm not sure why it should apply less to text content than to images.
-For what it is worth, my reaction on reviewing the MfDs was not one of trying to decide which side of the argument had the better position. It was to ask myself why, with all the important and interesting work we all have to do, we continually allow ourselves to be distracted by totally unnecessary dramas of this kind. With due respect to all concerned, this issue was plainly not worth the amount of unhappiness created and community time and energy spent on it. Although I understand that the editor who created the userpage did so to express a point of view, at all times, userspace is ancillary rather than key to the overall mission of the project. Short of an unusual scenario that I cannot currently imagine, if it ever came to my attention that something in my userspace was causing even a fraction of the unhappiness and expenditure of time and effort as this MfD and its sequel, I would delete it immediately in the interest of collegiality. There is a strong argument that the appropriate outcome of this MfD would have been to delete on the ground that, for better or worse, the page in question had become unconscionably divisive relative to its importance.
-In any event, during the course of the MfD, Milomedes made his comments asserting that anyone opposing the fair-use claim must be careful because if their position turned out to be incorrect, they could be identified, sued, and hauled before a jury for defamation. These comments were, to say the least, completely unhelpful and damaging to the discussion. In the first place, they made very little sense. An assertion that an individual might have violated a copyright by misconstruing the law of fair use is hardly the sort of accusation that is defamatory per se, either in the United States or, to the best of my knowledge, elsewhere. Indeed, within reasonably limits, the assertion that too much text has been quoted to sustain a fair use claim would probably be considered a statement of opinion resting upon fully disclosed facts, which cannot give rise to a defamation claim.
-That is getting too technical, so I will simplify it: The idea that litigation could have arisen from the comments in the MfD discussion was absurd and should never have been entertained. It was obvious that no one was going to bring the type of lawsuit suggested by Milomedes. So either Milomedes raised the spectre of litigation and liability without having fully researched the issue, in which case he acted recklessly, or he did so knowing that his concerns were unfounded, in which case he willfully poisoned the discussion. In either event, his comments were an entirely unhelpful addition to an already pointless and problematic drama.
-That is a separate issue, of course, from whether Milomedes made a legal ''threat'' that should have resulted in blocking. Our policy prohibits legal threats, and it prohibits comments that are sufficiently close to legal threats that they might reasonably be perceived as threatening by the recipient. The analogy of a "non-threatening" comment along the lines of "nice house here, wouldn't want anything to happen to it" has some substance.
-But here, that analogy doesn't hold up particularly well, because Milomedes was clearly not the person who was being "accused" of potential copyright infringement, nor was he acting in concert with that person. Milomedes would not have had standing to bring the potential lawsuit he was referring to, even had the potential lawsuit not been frivolous, and so Milomedes' comments were not true legal threats.
-They might, however, have been "perceived legal threats." By way of explanation, the language in [[WP:NLT]] about perceived threats originates from observations I made as an arbitrator in the ''Alastair Haines'' case. One of the editors in that case was in the habit of accusing editors who he thought were mischaracterizing his actions or positions of "defaming" him. The accused editors reported that they were concerned that this was a legal threat by the person they were discussing. His response was that there could be no NLT violation because no actual litigation had been threatened or was being commenced. But the fact remained that his comments were making it impossible for the editors who felt themselves threatened to collaborate with him. So we adopted as a principle:
-:''Editors should refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if an editor asserts that a second editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", the second editor will often interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, less charged wording, such as "you have misstated my position in this dispute" or "you have made a statement about me that is not true and I hope you will retract it for the following reasons" is far preferable to an allegation of defamation.''
-Similar wording was then added to the NLT policy, and applies here. It is obvious that references to possible lawsuits, subpoenas to learn identity, and jury trials were unnecessary in the context of an MfD revolving around a fair use issue, and would predictably serve to worsen the atmosphere surrounding the discussion.
-Milomedes could riposte that there is a time when legal risks surrounding an issue may legitimately be raised: when there is a genuine, good-faith, reasonable basis for warning another user that his or her conduct is actually creating such a risk. We addressed this issue in the ''Jim62sch'' case, where we observed:
-:''Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient. However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. Such situations are sensitive and in cases of doubt a user should consult privately with an experienced administrator or the Arbitration Committee.''
-In other words, an editor wishing to alert another editor to this type of problem should tread with caution, delicacy, and sensitivity. Milomedes did not do that; his words were ill-chosen and highlighted the "or else" aspect of the comments. If echoed by others, they would make it almost impossible to engage in robust good-faith discussion of copyright-law and related policy disputes.
-The major mitigating factor in this case, ironically, is that the likelihood of the litigation against which Milomedes was warning was so exceedingly slight, indeed non-existent, that no reasonable editor would have been seriously concerned by the reference to it. Nonetheless, upon learning that fellow editors were construing, or even misconstruing, his comments as being in the nature of an NLT violation, Milomedes should have been at pains to clarify his meaning immediately. This, the record suggests, he failed sufficiently to do, and it is understandable that he was blocked as a result.
-The instances listed by MastCell, above, suggest that this may not have been the sole instance in which Milomedes may have erred in this fashion. However, Milomedes' block has prevented him from responding on-wiki to the request for arbitration, and therefore it would not seem appropriate for me to address that aspect at this point.
-Because I believe our prior decisions and the NLT policy are sufficiently clear as to what types of comments are inappropriate and how any good-faith legal concerns should be raised, I do not believe it is necessary for us to take up this case to address those issues.
-This leaves, as a potential issue for arbitration, the status of Milomedes himself. I do not negate the possibility that Milomedes could be unblocked by administrator consensus, with conditions, if he were to respond appropriately on his talkpage to the input he has received on this page. Alternatively, separate from this arbitration, Milomedes has filed a request for review of his indefinite block with the Ban Appeals Subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee. In my view, the best course at this time if there is no unblock, would be to allow the subcommittee to evaluate the appeal. Without speaking for the subcommittee, of which I am not a member, I suggest that any unblock, if granted, would be conditioned on the promise to assist a collegial editing environment by entirely avoiding in the future the types of comments that have here proved divisive and inflammatory, irrespective of whether they fall or whether Milomedes believes they fall within the four corners of the NLT policy. Any problems that might follow any unblock should be promptly addressed on the appropriate noticeboard, an RfC, or if necessary a new request for arbitration. One would hope that Milomedes would substantially modify the tone of his participation so that none of these steps would become necessary. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 23:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
-----