Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

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

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Current requests

WP:NCGN

Initiated by Rembaoud at 3 april 2008

Involved parties

• Rembaoud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Tankred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Probably others on varous talkpages, they'll come later

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

• Diff. 1: It is me, Rembaoud, i am aware of myself, and my acts, i guess...
• Diff. 2: [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 [2]
• Link 2 [3]
• Link 3 [4]

Statement by Rembaoud

As for being a Slovak, I started making Slovak people's articles historically accurate, when I was presented with WP:NCGN, and the tiny suprise that all my 3 hour work was deleted (undone) in 10 minutes, per WP:NCGN.

WP:NCGN allows anachronisms (a type of history falsifcation) in articles.

The most obvious (such) falsification of history (for me) is calling Bratislava "Bratislava" pre 1919, since it was called "Presporok" in Slovak untill the new name mentioned were invented. I-n-v-e-n-t-e-d. On English language maps, it is called Pressburg pre 1919, and WP:NCGN encourages to use "widely accepted >>English<< names", however this widely accepted "English" (German - Pressburg) name is constantly being deleted in the name of "WP:NCGN". Many similar and harder-to-find examples exist, but this is the most obvious one in my opinion.

Slovak extremism's very own tradition is inventing history, and i am pretty sure, that they are behind this, they are very active on the internet. Please, do not let them doing it here too. WP:NCGN was invented and is only used to legally delete every non Slovak names of those cities, even despite that the sole remaining (Slovak) name did not exist at that time(!!!), and by that, falsificating history, making Wikipedia's articles more inaccurate and therefore >>>damaging Wikipedia's credibility<<<.

I do not now the "status" of WP:NCGN, whether it is a policy, a part of a policy or a guideline or whatever. My basic purpose posting this case here is to manage to delete this, because many attemps I've read on talkpage to reform or redispute the page was turned down by Slovak editors, and it is obvious that nothing lower forum will ever help this situation, but arbitration.

WP:NCGN is also a well of raising tensions between Slovak and Hungarian editors, therefore its mere existence is also bad for the community itself. Please, consider deleting it.

Thank you, --Rembaoud (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

It seems dispute resolution has not been tried. I have notified Tankred that this is open so he can comment. Orderinchaos 10:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Tulkolahten

I do not know the history of this dispute, but as far as Bratislava is the capital city it is commonly accepted consensus that it is used in this form anywhere anytime. Such edits can be found as disruptive by other editors. For example this edit [5] can be assumed as made in good faith however for everyone who knows the history this can be seen as a disruptive edit with one purpose only - to provoke. This edit [6] is the same case, it is made into the article about famous Slovak who is usually called as father of the Slovak national revival. Renaming Slovak names into its Hungarian alternatives as for example [[Banská Bystrica|Besztercebánya]] is redundant because everybody can see this in the main article about Banska Bystrica, Hungarian language has no formal nor informal status in the Banska Bystrica nowadays. I do not see anything wrong in the Tankred reversions as far as he remained perfectly civil. And he is correct in the statement his reverts are per WP:NCGN.

I see in this just a content disputation. Also Tankred encouraged user Rembaoud to read WP:NCGN [7] and he remained civil, but user Rembaoud did not [8]. I've also find this [9]. I also don't see that links provided in Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried are valid and also there were no attempt by user Rembaoud to contact Tankred directly at his talkpage. Speaking from the position of the WikiProject Slovakia member I must say that Tankred is a well distinguished and valuable editor of our WikiProject. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 17:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Reject as premature and largely a content dispute. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. Seek out the opinions of other editors to see if mediated talk page discussion, a content RFC, or a third opinion will help. If these do not help and concerns about user conduct are an issue, seek the assistance of an experienced editor or administrator. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline, premature. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline for the same reason. This is squarely within the Working Group's territory; you may want to look at the debates over Gdansk/Danzig as a historical example for how cities with different names are treated, and also as an example of how not to solve a naming dispute. Another piece of advice is that the Arbitration Committee are not going to overturn the naming conventions for places because that is a policy matter which the community decides. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline at this time per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

---

IZAK 2

Initiated by Bstone (talk) at 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Bstone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• IZAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

• IZAK notified [10]
• I am already notifed. Bstone (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1 [11]
• Link 2 [12]

Statement by Bstone

IZAK has made my recent editing on Wikipedia very difficult. He very clearly has violated WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:OWN and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND among others. He has been demanding in how I edit and has crossed the line in so many ways and so many times that I am feeling harassed and wondering if my continued participation in Wikipedia can continue. I would point out that many of the above issues have previously been addressed in IZAK's previous ArbCom case. The evidence phase will demonstrate over a dozen violations which are egregious. Many other individual editors have complained about IZAK's behavior on various boards, including two on AN/I and a very lengthy one on Wikiquette alerts, two previous RFCUs and a previous ArbCom case (see above) in which he was convicted on several counts.

Statement by IZAK

(1) No direct dispute resolution was initiated by Bstone with me directly. (2) I am a long-standing highly pro-active editor of over five years and retained my positive outlook and faith in Wikipedia and its goals. (3) See User Bstone (talk · contribs)’s RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 on 23 February, 2008 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#IZAK not assuming good faith . (4) Instead of answering my call for a "meeting of the minds" as at User talk:IZAK#Administrators noticeboard he moves to "arbitration" not trying Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. (5) He insists on mentioning a previous arbitration case that involved me a few years ago which involved other highly controversial issues relating to antisemitism and Israel and involving a number of other parties many now long banned from Wikipedia. (6) Bstone cannot seem to grasp and it's a point that I have repeatedly tried to get across to him which he refuses to accept, see User talk:Bstone/Archives/03/2008#REQUEST x 3, again. and User talk:IZAK#Re: REQUEST x 3, again. is his tendency to be simplistically DELETIONIST and by refusing to let a wider circle of editors know that he is nominating articles/stubs for deletion as a common courtesy, such as at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, is counter-productive and not condusive to WP:CONSENSUS. (7) His response to challenges is by running to complain at WP:ANI or to open WP:RFC and now here at WP:RFAR. (8) After Bstone had nominated a number of articles for deletion relating to Jewish synagogues and schools, I personally spent many hours improving many of those article bringing them up to par and saving them from deletion:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyt Tikkun Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 14 and makes excuses to me at User talk:IZAK#Beyt Tikkun1.
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adath Jeshurun Congregation saved by me [13] as Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka, Minnesota).
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adas Israel Congregation saved by me [14] as Adas Israel Congregation (Duluth, Minnesota).
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'nai Emet Synagogue saved by me [15] as B'nai Emet Synagogue (St. Louis Park, Minnesota)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yavneh Day School saved and DABed by me [16] [17] as Yavneh Day School (Los Gatos, California) and Yavneh Day School (Cincinnati, Ohio)
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Stern, most Judaic users disagree with his reasons.
7. I improve articles that Bstone had edited, like Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas [18] and try to mediate and advise Bstone to avoid WP:BITE, see Talk:Temple Shalom of Northwest Arkansas#Reverts, and I improved JIMENA. No thanks from Bstone.
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious (band): I was not the creator of article, only WP:DABed it FIVE years ago, and requested of Bstone that he let general music editors know of his nomination.

(9) Rather than my hard work to improve articles impressing Bstone, showing him by example that INCLUSIONISM works given a chance, and him learning from it, it has only hardened his attitude towards me. (10) I request that this motion be dropped until the earlier motion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 is ended and request that Bstone prove WP:AGF and avoid WP:DICK. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

I'm not sure this is ripe for the committee. To the extent it is ripe, I think the evidence indicates that the behavior of both parties has been suboptimal. See also this current ANI thread. Perhaps Bstone could use some mentoring by a more experienced hand and IZAK some changes to his vocabulary as some of the troubles have been kicked off by Bstone not understanding some of the word choices that IZAK used. GRBerry 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Avi

Firstly, from a procedural perspective, I believe this is premature while Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 is still open. Secondly, and more disturbing to me, is that there were specific recommendations made to both parties at the RfC, specifically at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#RfC Status update, and escalating this to an RfAR is an inappropriate response before significant effort was expended by both parties to work together. -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by John Carter

More or less agreed with Avi above. So far, only an RfC has taken place, and, as previously noted, it isn't even closed yet. The other intervening steps, including Mediation, have yet to be taken. Based on that, without addressing the validity of the points from either side, I think that it may well still be premature to bring the case to ArbCom, given the active state of the first step and no attempt at mediation yet. I do think that someone who knows more about it than I do, which includes, oh, pretty much everybody, might want to see whether the RfC should be closed, though. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by MPerel

Chiming in with what GRBerry, Avi, and John Carter have already said above, this is not ready for Arbcom. The (still open) RFC recommended trying Mediation. That would be one of many available options to pursue first. --MPerel 19:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Response by Bstone

Hi, folks. I see that this request may be denied based on procedural grounds, which I am fine with. However, I am confused about something regarding mediation. I am being urged, it seems, to request mediation between IZAK and I. I have done this informally with an admin before and it didn't progress[19]. I just checked WP:MEDIATION and it says "The Mediation Committee only deals with content disputes. Due to limitations of the mediation model and our general scope, we will refuse to intervene in user conduct disputes." [20] So, it seems formal mediation is not part of the equation, tho I wish it was. As far as the RFCU, I am a bit surprised it is still open as it has been largely dormant for a while. As well, I have viewed it and I see that there are some editors who support IZAK without really looking at some of the more egregious statements he has made. Of course I am biased but some don't even find a problem with his Kristalnacht reference[21] (which is absolutely horrifying as I lost many relatives in that horrible night of anti-semitism). So, based on what I see as formal mediation not being available and the RFCU being all but closed I thought it best to bring this matter to the ArbCom so they may once again review IZAK's behavior. Bstone (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe you brought the Kristalnacht reference during the RfC. Have you read the responses there, in specific, proposed remedies 2, 3, and 3.1? May I ask in what way you have tried and failed that required you to skip Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and jump right here? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Avi, regarding mediation, the Mediation Committee has specifically stated they will not intervene in user conduct issues. I went to file the case and the Guild to Filing said in no uncertain terms that they will immediately remove any case which has a user conduct issue in it. As such, it seems that formal mediation is not available. I have tried informal mediation with an administrator, who did get involved, but it did not work out the issues. Both of the links are in my response, above. As far as the proposed remedies, I did sign on to one of them some time ago. It was IZAK's most recent accusation that I edit Wikipedia in order to do harm that was the proverbial tipping point and made me think bring this matter to the attention of the ArbCom. Bstone (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Per Avi and several others, I would point out that the RfC has not been closed and other avenues of dispute resolution have not been exhausted. I would refer Bstone to WP:DR#Last resort: Arbitration, which indicates that an editor should "have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute" before requesting arbitration and that the editor "be prepared to show that [she or he] tried to resolve the dispute by other means". It isn't clear to me that Bstone has tried the first, and most basic, approach to dispute resolution: approaching IZAK one-on-one to discuss their differences. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 02:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Malik. Thank you for your feedback. I believe I have chatted with IZAK in several informal ways however I am very willing to enter into mediation with him. It seems, tho, that the Mediation Committee is entirely unwilling to help works this out. I did approach an admin (link above) about informal mediation, tho that did not work as IZAK did not respond favorably to me or the admin. I opened the RFCU, which seemed to be the next appropriate venue. It is still open but I am truly not sure why as I signed onto a proposed decision some time ago and it's been sitting largely dormant for some time. Since I feel that IZAK is continuing his uncivil statements toward me and since I have exhausted what seems to be every venue for dispute resolution I thought it best to bring this to the attention of the ArbCom. However, I am very very willing to go forth with mediation between IZAK and I provided it is done in good faith, by an uninvolved administrator who is known for helping to mediate these sorts of things. Bstone (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Shirahadasha

As other editors have explained better than I can, other steps short of arbitration are still possible, including the both the RFC and informal mediation. Perhaps the parties could try and find a more mutually acceptable mediator. The parties represent opposite ends of the classic deletionist/inclusionist debate, perspectives that have a long and legitimate history in Wikipedia. Since outcomes tend to fall somewhere in between, adherents of both views can find themselves disappointed and even frustrated. It would be helpful if the parties could perhaps not take these disputes and their respective views on them so personally. User:Bstone is not wrong to seek the deletion of various articles, and User:IZAK is not wrong to seek to keep them. Perhaps they could accept this situation and their differences and develop a working relationship. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As above, I am very much looking forward to finding an uninvolved administrator who is skilled at informal mediation. Do you have any suggestions? Bstone (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I have asked IZAK to reduce his statement which, at 1300+ words, is far in excess of the 500 word guideline. Daniel (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Daniel: Done. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• Decline at this time. The RFC is progressing and I hope IZAK will take note of the opinions expressed there, which seem to me to be nuanced and sensitive to his position. I don't think it would be right to accept an arbitration case now, before IZAK has had the chance to demonstrate that he can edit without giving rise to problems. If, after a suitable interval, there are continuing problems, then we should reconsider what can be done. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. I urge all involved parties to work hard toward resolution of this dispute. This is not a procedural issue. The Arbitration Committee supports the idea that arbitration cases should be the last step in dispute resolution. It is in the best interest of the involved parties and the Community for the involved users to work together and with other Community members to find ways to resolve concerns rather than subjecting themselves to Committee enforced sanctions. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Decline at this time per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Clarifications and other requests

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Request for clarification: User:Privatemusings

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by User:Lawrence Cohen

Privatemusings is prohibited from working on WP:BLP articles. However, is there any intended prohibition on his removing obvious vandalism or BLP violations from those articles, if found? At User talk:Privatemusings#Probation violation the question has come up whether reverting this edit as vandalism and/or a BLP violation on Heather Mills is allowed, or this edit on Jonathan King. Lawrence § t/e 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also posted by Guy for review to AE, as well, after this posting by me: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Privatemusings. Lawrence § t/e 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Last question for the arbs from Lawrence

Is it safe to assume that in any such topical editing ban, that unless you guys specifically say, "Even if you want to revert vandalism or a BLP violation, don't..." that other users are safe to make such positive edits? Lawrence § t/e 20:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be wrong to try to extract any rules from this. As Sam said, "I don't encourage editors who have been banned from certain classes of page to revert obvious vandalism there ..." That doesn't mean that common sense shouldn't be applied, but it also doesn't mean that boundary-testing is welcome. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't want anyone to try to push things to risk a pointless ban, no. I was just curious about their thinking, since it's bound to come up again with someone else. Lawrence § t/e 21:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

The account that made the complaint about PrivateMusings — Archfailure (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) — is one with almost no edits. No one sensible is likely to argue that PM shouldn't revert vandalism and serious BLP violations. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JzG has indef banned Archfailure. Lawrence § t/e 20:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

As reverting vandalism does not count toward violation of WP:3RR I suggest that reverting vandalism does not count toward violation of PrivateMusings BLP article parole. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Falls under the heading of "admins are expected to use judgment, even in enforcing ArbComm sanctions. No admin using sound judgment would do anything about reverting that. Not usre this is worth the Arbitrator's time. GRBerry 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• If administrators interpret this remedy as precluding the edits that are being reported, then I will move to vacate it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Archfailure's attempt to get action against Privatemusings is distinctly tendentious. I don't encourage editors who have been banned from certain classes of page to revert obvious vandalism there, but it would be madness to consider it blockable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Even Archfailure says that it was a good revert. Clearly, no admin or Committee action is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe we have a consensus here and that a Clerk can go ahead and archive this section. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for appeal: Child psychology

• KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jean Mercer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fainites (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Rejected case

Statement by KingsleyMiller

Statement for clarification

I have challenged the decision in the above case but received no notification of the result. (I have been contacted off forum again by another person who claims they were also banned as a result of Fainites and Jean Mercer - Each e-mail claims that Jean Mercer is not a 'true' expert - The second e-mail has gone as far as naming FT2 as the administrator who protects them). The original application was that the editor known as Fainites is acting in 'bad faith' according to the Wikipedia procedures. The original decision found that bad faith was 'not clearly demonstrated'. But in the statement subsequently made by Jean Mercer she quoted something that I was alleged to have said, "That the study of maternal deprivation is identical with attachment theory". In the appeal I was able to show that Fainites had deliberately caused this confusion by taking my words out of context and in a another example deliberately changing the heading of a section. These are only a few examples given because of lack of space demanded by the Wikipedia process but there are many others. I described Fainites as an 'Edit Warrior' on behalf of John Bowlby and the discredited theory of 'Maternal Deprivation'. This theory was that mothers are more important to young children than fathers. All the research shows that fathers are just important to children as mothers and to find against this appeal would put Wikipedia on the side of sexist editors in Child Psycholgy such as Fainites. (For the sake of clarity I also reproduce the appeal statement here with the revised links since further editing by Fainites ). KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeal Statement

In rejecting the application Sam Blacketer states, "This is a dispute over the content of the pages, and despite extensive searching, the only violations of policy I can find is KingsleyMiller's belief that Fainites is acting in bad faith which is not clearly demonstrated". But in her statement posted afterwards Jean Mercer states, "However, in my opinion it is not correct to claim that the study of maternal deprivation is identical with attachment theory". In my postings for Wikipedia I have never claimed they are the same and I have clearly stated the opposite.

It is Fainites who has stated that I believe they are the same by taking words out of their original context and I use this example to "clearly demonstrate" to Wikipedia that he or she is acting in "bad faith". To reinforce this appeal I refer the arbiters to the section entitled the 'Maternal Deprivation controversy' in the page on John Bowlby. This was posted before Jean Mercer's statement for arbitration. In this page I clearly indicate the salient differences between Maternal Deprivation and the attachment theory and I use this as further evidence in support for this appeal to show that her confusion has been deliberately caused by Fainites acting in "bad faith".

It would be incorrect to state that this example did not form part of my original application. I should also like to refer the arbiters to the specific instance of Fainites "bad faith" I gave as the heading or title, "At the bottom of the page on Rutter which has been changed to read 'Significant developments in Attachment Theory'." If the arbiters follow the link they will see that Fainites changed this from, "Significant differences between Maternal Deprivation and the Attachment Theory". I use this example to show Wikipedia that I have never believed they are the same and that it is Fainites who has deliberately sought to confuse the two.

Fainites has only recently stated for the first time that he or she believes John Bowlby is the 'author' of the Attachment Theory. This is a minority view. Most would accept that through 'Maternal Deprivation' he contributed greatly to our understanding of 'attachment' but he did not invent the theory. I accept that Jean Mercer may have become inadvertently involved in this complaint but I should like the arbiters to consider whether Fainites is an 'Edit Warrior' on behalf of Bowlby and the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation' and that by seeking to confuse the two he or she has seriously undermined the Wikipedia pages on Child Psychology. In support for this view I the discussion page for 'Maternal deprvation' and the video clip included on the Wikipedia page on John Bowlby which seems to be a thinly disguised justification for the idea of 'Maternal Deprivation'.

(I am the author of 'even Toddlers Need Fathers' which is subtitled 'A guide to the Tender Years Theory. A critique of the principle of maternal deprivation used by the courts in the UK to justify contact orders between children and their parents'. I was given the unique right by Court of Appeal to publish the County Court judgments from my family proceedings because of my, "History of responsible campaigning and writing on issues relating to family relationships". Professor Sir Michael Rutter described my booklet as an 'interesting and informative guide').

In support for the need of clarification

If it would help Wikipedia to make up it's mind about the editing of Fainites and Jean Mercer it might help to look at the page on 'Maternal Deprivation'. I created this page to compliment the section on the 'Maternal Deprivation controversy' I had added to John Bowlby. 'Maternal Deprivation' is the discrete term given to the theory expounded by Bowlby in 'Maternal Care and Mental Health', World Health Organization WHO (1951) that mothers are more important to children than fathers. All research shows that fathers are just as important to even very young children and if Wikipedia takes the time to consult what Bowlby actually said about this work in 'Citation Classic' you can see there is nothing vague about it. Yet Fainites introduction to the page on Maternal Deprivation' reads as follows;-

"The term maternal deprivation describes the experiences and possible negative effects on the development of children who lack a typical experience of mothers' care. As it is commonly used, this term is ambiguous, as it is left unclear whether the deprivation in question is that of the biological mother, of a specific adoptive or foster mother, of a consistent care giving adult of any gender or relationship to the child, of an emotional relationship, or simply of the experience of the types of care that is called "mothering" in many cultures".

In effect Fainites is trying to lose the link between how the term is used and Bowlby. In the same page the "Deprivation of Maternal Care: A Reassessment of its Effects" was not written by Ainsworth but this is how it appeared in an earlier edit by Fainites. In fact the original work caused a great deal of controversy and Ainsworth's contribution was accepted as a 'courtesy' to Bowlby. Fainites has included Ainsworth to lessen the controversial impact of Bowlby's work and to justify Fainites claim that he is the true 'author' of the attachment theory.

Perhaps the greatest travesty to accuracy lies in the omission of Bowlby's own words about the theory and the substitution of Mercer's work. There is no mention of the 'Citation Classic' by Bowlby in any of the references. However before this page was produced I am not sure Mercer was even aware of any controversy and certainly Fainites has stated he or she had never heard of the theory of 'Maternal Deprivation'. It was this omission that specifically led me to produce a video clip on YouTube, [Media:'Wikipedia Mistake: A case study of the work of Dr.John Bowlby'].

Any search on Bowlby and Maternal Deprivation will touch on the controversial nature of this theory but instead this page contains a great deal of unnecessary material which is only intended to confuse not help the reader.

It may help Wikipedia to seek explanations from Fainites about the reason for changing the disputed title, whether he or she still believes Bowlby is the 'author' of the attachment theory? Why he or she claims that I believe the attachment theory and maternal deprivation are the same when any cursory glance shows the opposite? Please confirm whether or not Fainites had heard of the 'Maternal Deprivation' controversy or even heard of the theory before it was posted on Wikipedia? Above all why has omitted the 'Citation Classic' by Bowlby and instead referred to Jean Mercer's work?

I hope this will help Wikipedia resolve this appeal.

Reply to GRBerry

The original complaint lies at;-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=201405650&oldid=201403216

The complaint was rejected.

I have lodged an appeal. Any complaints system must have a right to appeal. My appeal arises from the evidence provided by one of the other parties (see above) which seems to answer the substantive issue regarding the reason it was dismissed in the first place ie my, "belief that Fainites is acting in bad faith which is not clearly demonstrated"

No decision has been taken regarding this appeal. The reason for the delay in making a decision is, in my opinion, that given the evidence provided by the statements from the other parties Wikipedia would have to overturn the original decision ie reverse the decision against me because bad faith has been clearly demonstrated. This is awkward not to say embarrassing.

The clearest indication I can give to you that Fanities is acting in 'bad faith' is the reference above to the disputed title which I have linked here again.

Thank you for your interest and I hope this has gone some way to explaining the point.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Fainites

It cannot be 'harassment' to pursue the appropriate recourse and remedy, as you are probably already aware. In my original complaint I have accused you of editing under a false title, (for example when you changed the authorship of 'Maternal Deprivation of Maternal Care' in the log as an ethological change), making false claims for the contents, (for example the idea that Bowlby invented the 'attachment theory'), making false claims regarding myself (for example claiming that I believed that 'Maternal Deprivation' and the 'attachment theory' were the same when anybody can clearly see I stated the opposite). This last claim was obviously made to discredit myself in the eyes of others.

Your proper recourse is to answer the specific complaints detailed against you so that others can agree with you. When you have defended yourself, then you can set about making a complaint against me and banning me from Wikipedia. Beforehand I had no idea anybody had been banned as a result of yourself and Jean Mercer. I have only your word that only 2 people have been banned. Because they have been banned how else are they to contact me?

At the moment you stand accused and nowhere can I see you deny the specific accusations.

For the benefit of others who are taking an interest in these postings let me explain the significance of the complaint. What is being alleged is that the subject area on Wikipedia on Child Psychology is dominated by 2 individuals whose point of view is determined by a discredited theory which says that mothers are more important than fathers to young children. All (All) the research says that this is not so and I think this is an important enough issue to fight upon and I am sorry if others disagree.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Query by GRBerry

This is presented in the section for clarification of prior cases. What prior case is involved here? I can't find one in the list of all closed cases. If there is one, please link it in the header. If not, please relocate as a request for a new case. GRBerry 20:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a passerby, but I remember this as a recent Request for Arbitration that was declined by the committee; as I recall, the reasons given for not accepting the case were along the lines of it being a content dispute. Perhaps the person making the initial request for arbitration is appealing the decision of the committee to not accept the case, and that's why it was put in this section.Woonpton (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Fainites

I am being harrassed by this user, who refuses to discuss content, with accusations of bad faith. See John Bowlby talkpage. I have not bothered much until now but I would like ArbCom to consider this please fromUser:KingsleyMillers talkpage:

"ALL,

I have now been contacted separately by 2 people banned by Fainites and Mercer.

If you have more to contribute please e-mail me via YouTube or

eventoddlersneedfathers@freenet.co.uk

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller

The only person JeanMercer and I have been involved in an arbitration with together, was the DPeterson entity. (The other candidate is HeadleyDown). Fainites ^barley 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Substance Relevent talkpages.[22][23][24] and the parties talkpages. Relevant complaints/allegations.[[25][26]

• Kingsley Miller will not 'discuss. Regarding Rutter's 1995 paper I have attempted to discuss this on talkpages more than once and posted chunks of the relevant part to show why I considered his interpretation to be wrong.[27] There is no response from KM. In the absence of response I changed the headings because they misrepresented the source. Similarly, to the range of quotes from mainstream authors who seem to think attachment theory does originate from Bowlby, there has been no response.

• Kingsley Miller assumes bad faith and abuses and attacks other editors in lieu of any discussion of content. This first occurs with Mrvain68 on Attachment in children. KM had posted a somewhat out of date 'critique' of the Strange Situation procedure. Mrvain added up to date research and was attacked by KingsleyMiller as having a vested interest, vandalism and being a "mountebank". He has done the same with myself and JeanMercer.

• Bad faith assumptions. KingsleyMiller appears to assume this on the part of any editor who disagrees with him and then considers himself justified in making these allegations over a range of talkpages. See Maternal deprivation talkpage where I disagreed with KM's characterisation of Bowlbys work. I posted several substantial quotations from Bowlbys major work to illustrate my point. JeanMercer also provided some information. KM's response was to imply that I had made the passages up and adjusted the dates of publication. From then on he has simply refused to discuss content at all but pursued allegations of bad faith by way of complaint.

• Bad faith allegations. Many of KM's allegations within all three complaints are pointy and tendentious in that conversations are set out with crucial passages missing, edits are attributed to the wrong editor and statements are attributed to editors which they did not make. Any error in citations is assumed to be part of a deep laid plot which is difficult to understand. Editors who have had little to do with page content are considered to be reponsible for the whole article in some way.

• Threats. KingsleyMiller has threatened to pursue JeanMercer with complaints unless she 'distances' herself or ceases editing these pages.[[28]] On his own admission he is in contact with banned editors who may have an issue with myself and /or JeanMercer and is pursuing more.

• KM is a tendentious editor who has a particular POV about Bowlby's contribution and pursues that view to the exclusion of all else. As far as I can ascertain he appears to believe that; maternal deprivation is Bowlby's major work and the one for which he is primarily still known, that maternal deprivation is the dominant theory in use today, that Bowlby was not the main originator of attachment theory, that Bowlby believed that attachment was gender specific, that Bowlby believes only mothers are important to children. Attempts to provide sources indicating that these views might not be correct are met with abuse and allegations of bad faith. The misrepresentation of sources is problematical when the editor will not discuss. In pursuit of his aim he also refactors talkpages, adding tendentious headings and introductions to other editors posts. He also removes sourced information from articles if he considers it irrelevent to or in opposition to his particular POV.[29] He also takes a conspiratorial point of view on editors who disagree with him - as if there were some Bowlby Against Fathers Cabal dedicated to warping page content, which makes sensible discusion impossible. I simply do not understand the allegation of wishing to promote maternal deprivation or confuse the two when much effort has gone into trying to prevent the confusion of the two.

I do not accept any allegations of bad faith. I have attempted to discuss, referred to relevent policies and waited for Kips complaints or his search for advice. I have not pursued any complaints against Kip as he seemed to be seeking advice from more experienced editors. However, despite advice from Thatcher131 [30] and the comments about breach of policies in response to his application for arbitration,[31] the situation seems to be getting worse rather than better. I would love more editors to take part in these pages but if relative newbies like Mrvain68 get attacked in that way for trying to add what appeared to be up-to-date knowledge and research, why should they bother?

Statement by Jean Mercer

This is extremely tiresome and a waste of time. I stand by my previous comments and existing edits, and affirm my belief that some of the terms being used are ambiguous. Whether I am a 'true expert' or not is hardly for me to say. If I may quote Peg Bracken's old etiquette book, "I didn't come here to argue."

In my opinion, it's a mistake to have this maternal deprivation article to begin with, but as Kip wanted it, we have it, and it may as well be accurate.Jean Mercer (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I wrote the introductory statement that KM attributes to Fainites.Jean Mercer (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• To all parties, please do not create multiple sections and reply to other statements in them. Please incorporate any replies into your original statement section, and into the 500 word limit. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have asked KinglseyMiller to reduce his statement, currently more than 1800 words, to 500. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have reviewed this request and do not find any arbitrator action to be necessary. To the extent relevant, the parties should be mindful of the principles and findings in the committee's decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([32])
• FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ([33])
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ([34])

Statement by MastCell

I recently requested review of the Ferrylodge decision, which found that Ferrylodge was subject to indefinite sanctions and could be banned from any "article" relating to pregnancy or abortion which he disrupted. I believe that Ferrylodge was disruptive at Talk:Abortion; however, there was some dispute as to whether the sanction extended to all namespaces, or merely article-space.

The previous request is here. It was archived by a clerk at a point where two Arbs had opined, seeming (to me at least) to indicate that the sanction should apply across all namespaces. However, the AE request which started it all was closed without action based on the recent Macedonia clarification. I'm a bit confused.

I'd like a clear finding about whether Ferrylodge's sanction applies to all namespaces, or only to article-space. If it applies narrowly to article-space, then I'd like to request that the Committee formally extend the sanction to all namespaces, as Ferrylodge's disruptive editing has always been most prominent in talkspace. While the specific thread which led to my request has become dormant, the underlying issue remains, and Ferrylodge has in the past temporarily improved his behavior when under scrutiny only to relapse when the scrutiny is lifted. Therefore, I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces.

Given the extensive degeneration and misdirection evident at my prior request, I'll state upfront that I'm not going to respond to attacks, criticism, deflection, specific content issues, etc in this request. I want to keep this focused on the specific amendment I'm requesting. I will provide more detailed evidence of any specific claim should the Arbitrators think it would be useful; that will be the extent of my commentary here. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to GRBerry: The finding of fact from the ArbCom case pointed to a "long history of disruptive editing", referencing evidence of disruption across article and talk namespaces. I presented more evidence of continuing disruption in talkspace in my AE request. The fact is that Ferrylodge is intermittently disruptive in talkspace, backing off temporarily when attention is drawn to his behavior. If the expansion of this remedy hinges on my providing yet more evidence of his behavior, then I will, but it should not be this hard to slightly expand the wording of a probation on an disruptive editor. I'm not talking about banning him; I'm just asking that he behave on talk pages and not just in articlespace. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to Brad's comment.

• Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere The specific dispute which sparked this request is stale. I don't see any need to do anything retroactive to address such past disputes anymore - it would be punitive at this point - but I would still like a narrow and straightforward prospective clarification that in the future Ferrylodge's sanctions apply across all namespaces, if ArbCom feels this is appropriate. In this specific case the letter of the decision appears to be fairly important, and without a clarification my belief is that this will come up again. Just a simple change in the remedy from "articles" to "any page" would do the trick from my perspective. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to bainer's comment.

• The "any page" formulation was an outright ban, whereas the "article" remedy which did pass merely enabled an uninvolved admin to ban him if necessary. I thought the thrust of the difference between the two proposals was the ban vs. the probation, rather than page v. article, but obviously I'm guessing. In any case, based on previous events, can I request that the remedy be formally amended to apply to any "page" related to abortion or pregnancy which Ferrylodge disrupts? MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ferrylodge

Unfortunately, I do not have time today to comment much. Hopefully I will have time to respond more fully on Monday or Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with Mastcell.

The administrator who handled this matter at Arbitration Enforcement said: "Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act. Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page."[35]

Mastcell has not cited any specific article edit by me that he finds disruptive; he has only provided talk page diffs. And yet, he is requesting a vast expansion of the ArbCom decision in my case: "I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces." Is Mastcell referring to project namespace? Is he referring even to user namespace? I do not know. In any event, if Mastcell really wants to argue that I have recently been behaving disruptively at the abortion talk page, it would be most helpful if Mastcell would please identify the single specific diff that he thinks is most egregious, so that we can focus on it.

I believe that Mastcell was being disruptive recently at the abortion-related articles, and I have no regrets about reverting him here at the abortion article. I also continue to be flabbergasted by his subsequent reversion here at the related main article. So, I have concerns that Mastcell may be using this ArbCom forum in consequence of a content dispute, rather than because of any real disruption on my part.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Mastcell indicates[36] that he does not want to identify the specific diff that he thinks is most egregious (as I requested above), I doubt it would be helpful for me to say anything further at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Mastcell's Response to GRBerry: Mastcell, you are accusing me of disruption for saying things like the following to another editor: "You're repeatedly pasting massive amounts of redundant stuff, swamping whatever comments other people make." Mastcell, do you think that if another editor pastes massive amounts of redundant stuff at a talk page,[37][38] thus swamping whatever comments other people make, then I should praise instead of criticize such an editor? Perhaps you will now accuse me of cherry-picking your criticisms of me, but the fact is that I have (over and over again) asked you to cherry-pick your criticisms of me, so that I can respond concisely to what you regard as my most serious offense. Please, go ahead and cherry-pick from your arguments, so that we can focus on a serious complaint instead of one of your less compelling complaints. I do not think that ArbCom is interested in me trying to put in context and rebut every single one of your laundry-list of Ferrylodge quotes. Pick your best one, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to Brad's comment.

• Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere Mastcell is requesting a change in the remedy in my case. This should be supported by evidence. It would be helpful if Mastcell would please identify the specific diff that he thinks is most representative of such evidence, so that we could focus on it. Additionally, I would like to ask how to go about entirely erasing the remedy in my case. Presumably it was not intended to last for the rest of my life. The remedy has been in effect since last year, and there have not been any blocks or bans.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

When handling the last, now stale, WP:AE complaint I noted that the case log did not provide evidence that an expansion to talk pages was merited, and encouraged MastCell to provide evidence of disruption in other pages if he felt expansion was merited. It is getting now close to a month since I made this suggestion. This leads me to suspect that there is not readily available evidence to support an expansion. Unless evidence is suddenly forthcoming, I tend to believe that expansion is not currently needed. GRBerry 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see that this request for clarification has sat here for 10 days without input from any arbitrator, which is excessive, and I apologize since the situation is 1/15th my fault. Having said that, can I ask the parties to comment whether this situation is an ongoing problem that you feel still requires action by the committee, or whether it has calmed down. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• See the proposed decision; here an "any page" remedy did not pass, whereas the alternative "article" formulation did, so in this case "article" means "article". --bainer (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just to note that I concur with bainer's reading of the situation. In response to MastCell's comment in follow-up, I'm not sure whether it's needed to extend to prior ruling, as per Brad. James F. (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Right now I would not support extending the rulings to cover other than articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [39]
• PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [40]
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [41]
• Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [42]
• AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [43]

Request by PHG

I am requesting that the above case be amended to the effect that User:Elonka be restricted from attacking me through abusive representation of the Arbcom decision. Elonka is trying to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia [44], and is misusing Arbcom restrictions to achieve her means. Most recently, she pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator (User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." [45]

Claims/evidence

• Elonka claimed that "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on Medieval History within the article)" [46]. There was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question (now France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period.
• Elonka claimed that I " re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)", as ground to have me blocked. Actually I did not recreate deleted content as has been claimed, I only inserted a small link to an older version of an article ("Long version here") instead of the 200k content that had been deleted. I am also not prohibited from creating User subpages so the claim to block me is inappropriate.
• As soon as I try to contribute to Talk Pages, Elonka claims that I am "not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree." [47]. This is highly untrue, as the discussions claimed to have me blocked were either new ([48], far from being consensual (with many users actually agreeing with me) [49], or totally legitimate [50] as they had not been discussed in detail yet[51]
• Elonka claimed the fact that I created a User subpage as ground to have me blocked: "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)" [52] However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles (as already re-affirmed by the Arbcom when a request to the contrary failed [53]).
• Elonka routinely misrepresents my Arbcom restrictions as affecting all history-related article, when in fact I am only restricted from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles: "This user, User:PHG is restricted from working on history-related articles. The page may look good, but the user routinely misinterprets sources. Please delete, and block the user" [54].

Requested remedy

I request a fair treatment from the Arbitration Commity through an honest implementation of my Arbcom restrictions, and protection from users who try to bend the rules to do me harm. Specially, I request that Elonka be restricted against harassing me or misrepresenting my Arbcom restrictions or the nature of my contributions. PHG (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note: this statement has been refactored to within the statement length limit. — Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee 14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

I have commented several times on this issue. Perhaps it would be best if I reiterate my thoughts from AE: see here.

If any ammendment to be made, I feel that the most suitable one would be a clarification of the Committee's view on PHG's contributions and, by extension, his disruption. The initial restriction was very much, I feel, a message to PHG that his editing habits need to change. Rather than interpret the spirit of that remedy, and use his last reprieve from project exclusion and firmer remedies (which were very much on the table during the Franco-Mongol case) well, he has proceeded to duck around the fine points of the remedy (e.g., creating articles that fell just outside of the "medieval history" period, from which he was restricted).

I feel PHG's conduct since the initial arbitration case was closed has fell well beneath the standards expected of a project editor, and I think it harmful for him to be allowed to continue in this vein. Anthøny 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

{extended comment by PHG, removed} I do not wish to enter into yet another round of ping-pong. Anthøny 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Amendment, from AGK

This amendment proposed with a view to amending Franco-Mongol alliance to: 1/ cover all history articles, per recent gaming of the remedy's specifics, such that he is editing articles which, although very clearly related to history, are not covered by the remedy's boundaries of "medieval or ancient history"; 2/ include all pages of the project, rather than simply articles.

Remedy one of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance is amended such that, PHG (talk · contribs) is now restricted from editing and creating any pages related to history, for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

The "blanket" nature of this proposal, in that it covers the general subject area of "history", as opposed to specific branches of it, is proposed in light of PHG's recent progression from "medieval and ancient history", to more recent, renaissance history. It has become somewhat apparent that he will continue to roam around the countless branches of history, and it is a waste of both the Committee's and the Community's time to consistently bring in additional remedies, restricting his recent area of activity.

This blanket nature is somewhat drawn from recent cases, such as (and here I flinch, at having to drag back in recent cases) Privatemusings, where Privatemusings was restricted from all BLP articles. My proposed amendment to Franco-Mongo's fairly close-to-the-bone approach has the added advantage of noting that disruption to certain topic areas will not be tolerated, and will be handled robustly.

I am also open to further chopping-and-changing of this proposal, including to include either point 1/ or 2/ (see my introduction), although I obviously think that to be less than ideal. Anthøny 18:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

PHG has certainly exhausted my patience. This request by PHG amounts to vexatious litigation. I request the arbitration committee address this dispute with greater vigor. At some point we must stop wasting time on disruptive users who show no sign or intention of improving. Can somebody tell me why we allow PHG to continue editing any history articles, or any articles, given the history of tendentious misrepresentation of sources? Is there any reason to think this is related only to Franks and Mongols, as opposed to Franco-Japanese history?  Redflag [55] Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response: he is permitted to continue editing history articles, because his restriction covers only "medieval and ancient history". Hence, his contributions to France-Japan relations is not a violation of his restrictions, as the subject of the article does not fall as applicable to medieval history. Of course, that's very much gaming the system, something which I was very vocal about when he first created that article. Unfortunately, the ruling is very clear, and with regards to that article, I'm on shaky ground. Anthøny 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is why the ruling has failed to end the dispute. We need PHG to stop pushing novel theories of history via Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• PHG, you have demanded far more than your fair share of attention. You fought tooth and nail, forcing us to spend inordinate amounts of time debugging your Franco-Mongol stories. Please understand that this will not be repeated in other areas of Wikipedia. You have not yet acknowledged the nature of past problems, nor undertaken to do better in the future. As such, I think it is time for you to take a break from editing, to reflect on what has happened here, and to see if you want to change your approach. Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • PHG, you previously denied that anything was wrong with your work on Franco-Mongol alliance. You were proven wrong and subjected to sanctions, but you never acknowledged your mistakes, nor promised to do better. Now you deny that anything is wrong at France-Japan relations (19th century). This is de ja vu all over again. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• User:Abd has their own problems with disruption, including close ties to banned User:Sarsaparilla and the Wikipedia:Delegable proxy incident. Their sudden involvement in this matter, upon invitation by PHG is a very poor idea. Jehochman ^Talk 19:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak and PHG's upload log that shows repeated instances of images being uploaded without proper licensure. Until PHG undertakes to respect Wikipedia policies on content and copyright, editing needs to cease. Mentorship might be a reasonable alternative to banning. The current situation of unsupervised editing is creating a significant burden on other volunteers. Please respect our time and effort, and resolve this problem. The arbitration decision thus far has simply moved the wrecking ball from one location to another. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

I still support my comments here. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

This is nothing more than a regurgitation of PHG's complaints during the Arbitration case that were ignored then as they should be now. I have bent over backwards to help PHG edit productively including starting a DRV for him on the article in question for him while he was blocked -- I had sincerely hoped he could stick there and edit it in a way to show that he was going to move on and instead, the first time he has no interaction with Elonka in several days, we get this plastered everywhere.

I can't for the life of my figure out why he's become so fixated on Elonka. For instance, the case where he "recreated" a deleted page with a link to the deleted material -- I was the one who found and re-deleted it -- Elonka hadn't a thing to do with the case; yet every time it comes up, he blames Elonka. No matter how many people have tried to talk to him about that particular situation, he honestly seems to think that he was right and that I was wrong to delete it.

Obviously, PHG doesn't get it. Once he makes up his mind on an issue, he seems to be incapable of accepting any feedback or other viewpoints on the issue. Combine that with misguided editors with a cause like Abd and Dreamguy actually encouraging PHG's behavior and you're looking at a continuation of all the same problems with no end in sight. I'm honestly out of ideas on how to get PHG on track -- he refuses to go work in any of the other areas in Wikipedia that have interested him before, he refuses to be civil and calm, he refuses to accept any consensus he doesn't agree with and he refuses to stop these tirades against Elonka -- I'd be interested to hear if there are any suggestions other than blocking him any time he behaves in this manner. Shell ^babelfish 15:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Abd's remarks: I can only assume that Abd hasn't done much work in the area or researched the subject he's discussing. There are many scholarly works available that could be used for the article that don't require searching a rare book store. Shell ^babelfish 03:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Abd

I became aware of this situation through the MfD mentioned above by Daniel.[56] I noted there that the ArbComm decision in the primary case was apparently being misrepresented, in the nomination by Kafka Liz and in the first statement by Elonka, and I felt that this was important enough to warrant flagging it above the comments. This began a minor edit war, terminated when User:Fredrick day, shortly to be blocked, reverted my compromise language with a grossly uncivil comment, then reverted himself. Other editors then allowed the brief warning to remain. This misrepresentation is at the core of this dispute, in my opinion. The Committee stated that it continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, and it did not accuse him of actual "falsification" of sources. What we see in the complaint above is an assumption that everything from PHG must be examined with a jaundiced eye. That is, in fact, blatant AGF failure, contrary to policy, and itself sanctionable.

What I would urge ArbComm to do, here, is to look at the behavior of all involved (including myself) and notice and respond to policy failures, beginning with AGF. Above, I am accused of impropriety for allegedly encouraging PHG. I seek the guidance of this Committee.--Abd (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional note re comments by Elonka and question from arbitrator FayssalF: The article France-Japan relations (19th century), as might be expected from the subject, uses sources not readily available. We have before us an editor with voluminous contributions, with a few citations found suspect or misrepresented, and he created this article and put it up, a beautiful article on its face. Nothing about the article rings false to me, nor has any alleged fact in it been challenged. The matter of sources is raised in Talk:France-Japan relations (19th century) and the only ground asserted for questioning the sources is the ArbComm decision. I'd recommend reading the article and its talk page. If PHG had been found to have actually falsified sources, the matter would be different, and, indeed, a general edit ban might have been appropriate; but ArbComm pointedly avoided taking that step.

I find it quite disturbing that this article was speedily deleted based on nothing but a claim that it violated ArbComm restrictions, with PHG being blocked, as an additional result, on totally spurious grounds.[57] Notice that Elonka intervenes on PHG's Talk page, on the topic of the article and the block, with a radical misrepresentation of the topic ban.[58]. Further, in this edit, Elonka repeats a disturbing charge: That PHG is "continuing to argue at multiple article talkpages, in defiance of consensus." Consensus arises as a result of discussion and, yes, argument. If argument "against consensus" is not permitted, any consensus that appears is incomplete and biased, a rigid consensus is a fake consensus. If the argument is civil, but, say, stubborn, it may simply be ignored. It's a Talk page. My conclusion is that, while the editors in question doubtless believe that they are serving and protecting the project, the effect of their efforts with PHG is currently disruption and harassment and should cease. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

Regarding PHG's copy/paste here of what he's already posted at ANI and WP:AE, I point to what's already been said in the ANI thread.[59] As for new comments:

PHG runs hot and cold. Not all his work is bad. But even with the good work, sometimes it's hard to tell which it is, because though he writes well and uses lots of footnotes, he often still creates "bad" articles that are full of original research, violate WP:UNDUE, and sometimes use bad sources which promote fringe theories.

I also see PHG's behavior as an extreme example of a larger problem on Wikipedia. The culture here has a soft spot for article creators, or indeed any longterm editor who has a history of good contributions mixed in with the bad, such that the community tolerates disruptive behavior for far longer than I think is wise. As a visual analogy, I equate one of these editors to a tank that rumbles over the countryside, creating a swath of destruction. Yes, a few new flowers (articles) that might not have otherwise been there as soon, do grow in its wake. But to see them, requires ignoring the rest of the tank's carnage, dealing with multiple weeds that have been planted at the same time as the flowers, and attending to the injuries of other "gardeners" that were wounded during the tank's passage.

So, to reduce this collateral damage, I would like to suggest an amendment of my own. One of PHG's tactics is that as he gets challenged, he uses increasingly obscure sources. I have spent literally dozens of hours in libraries, just to research PHG's claims. Some sources were not available locally, or even via interlibrary loan. When I recently visited Washington DC, I spent many hours in the Library of Congress, just to get my hands on some of the more obscure books that PHG uses. I have also often found myself up against language barriers, as I have had to work with text in Latin, French, German, Italian, Hebrew, Arabic, and at one point I even tracked down editors from the Armenian WikiProject to translate text from Medieval Armenian. Even now, PHG is citing works that are in a combination of French and Japanese, and to make things even more complicated, they appear to be non-standard works which are not available in any American library. When I pointed this out,[60] PHG suggested going to a rare book website to purchase them (at a cost of over $100 / book!).[61]

I still think that PHG should be permanently removed from Wikipedia.[62] But, if the community still doesn't have enough stamina for that, I would at least like to see the following amendment:

--Elonka 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I can give a great deal more evidence about other problematic behavior by PHG since the ArbCom case has closed, such as creating articles which violate WP:UNDUE, and where he has been including inappropriate sources (of those that I am even able to check). He also appears to be linking to other articles, which, though they may seem to be reinforcing the information that is in PHG's new articles, as I'm digging deeper, I'm finding out that PHG created the older articles in the first place. Some go back to 2005, are completely unsourced, and follow this pattern of linking to other unsourced information which PHG had already planted. It's a bit complex to try and explain here in a short statement, but if the arbs want, I can pull this together on a subpage or something for review. --Elonka 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment, from Elonka

PHG is placed on an all-topic source restriction. He must use only reliable English-language sources, which are either easily available online, or commonly available in major libraries (as can be seen at Worldcat).[63] For other sources, PHG may make suggestions on article talkpages. If consensus can be achieved, per article, that a source is appropriate to use, PHG may then proceed. But even with English-language sources, if any editor expresses a concern with one of PHG's sources, he must cease using it until talkpage consensus can be achieved on its suitability.

Statement my uninvolved User:Ned Scott

I apologies if this seems inappropriate, but I felt I needed to comment here. I would like to echo some of the above comments, that Elonka has a tendency to exaggerate things. PHG seems to be trying to work within his limits, and in a way that is acceptable to the community, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that he's not perfect. It's one thing to say "Hey, PHG, you're in that grey area again, so be careful" and another to exasperate the situation.

In other words, there may be issues here, but there may also be a lot of undue weight. Unfortunately, as a community, we're quick to jump on the back of those who struggle with issues, even when that's not a good way to help the situation. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Slp1

I am disturbed by the way PHG wrote Christian Polak, bio of the author of many of the sources that he has been using in France-Japan relations (19th century). In creating this article today, PHG makes M. Polak look like a career historian,[64] when M. Polak is in fact a business consultant who does historical research "in parallel to his professional activities" (translation from the French).[65] (see page 9, sorry about the font). M. Polak's business career is entirely absent from PHG's version of the article, despite the fact that the information was available in the sources he himself used to write the article,[66] as well as simple google searches. I gather that this pattern of selective quoting of material to make a point is one that has been critiqued in the past. --Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Srnec

I have three comments and two suggested amendments to the ArbCom decisions. Comments:

1. I dispute Elonka's rationale for banning PHG. I don't thinking remove an editor with a generally civil record and numerous good contributions is best considering the number of editors who purposefully stir things up, are constantly uncivil, and who make next to no article-space edits and are still part of the project.
2. In light of the numerous allegations of it, I should say that I think "incivility" a bad reason for serious action unless it is extremely abusive, which PHG's has not been. He has barely even been uncivil by the standards of some other editors who don't even have sanctions against them. Whenever we concentrate on incivility we are ourselves in danger of falling out of WP:NPA: since we are not concentrating on content but on contributors.
3. PHG has demonstrated a problem specificalloy with WP:UNDUE, WP:OWN, and WP:RELIABLE (I wouldn't say either WP:NOR or WP:SYN). 1. He supports representing all opinions found in sources that meet Wikipedia's (low) standards. Contrary to his beliefs, this is not the crux of the NPOV policy. 2. He has shown a marked dislike for any major changes to text he writes. He creates articles in obscure topics perhaps because he knows he can de facto "own" them (N.B. pure speculation). 3. He doesn't seem to realise that not all sources are reliable nor are even all statements in reliable sources reliable. A trained historian would not make the mistakes he makes because he would read texts critically. 4. PHG copiously sources his text and I have not encountered major OR issues arisen except out of accident. 5. He has synthesised material (perhaps unknowingly), but he has not really objected to fixing this, in my opinion.

Proposed amendments:

1. Elonka's amendation is wise (considering English-language to include any work with an English translation available). So long as there are all-pervasive source concerns with PHG's work, he should be forced to stick to more accessible sources, per WP:V. This should not apply to talk pages (where he can present his obscurely-sourced material for discussion, since obscure sources can be very good ones) or user subpages (where he can work on his obscure material, but where right is reserved to delete if the sources are determined to be wanting).
2. PHG should not be banned for incivility unless "incivility" is more precisely defined. Same for "ancient and medieval history": put down strict guidelines so we have no more of this damned grey area, which has led to abusive and unnecessary blocking.

Srnec (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by lurker User:John J. Bulten

Amend the decision to state specifically ArbCom's view of the evidence, as this will guide the two chief combatants, as well as admins and community at large, as to what constitutes undue representation of its decision. I note mediation was closed due to "Participants' [plural] unwillingness to proceed with the mediation in good faith", [67] and I note in arbitration these two each accused the other of personal attacks, edit warring, and unfair presentation of viewpoints (not always under those heads). [68] As a first-year editor, I am still learning what WP:NPA, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:NPOV mean, and after much consideration I am still unable to discern from those pages why ArbCom judicially endorsed one party's accusations and made little to no mention of the other's. The ruling [69] briefly characterizes one party's edits wholly in terms of reference to the other party's characterization, and alludes to ArbCom's merely "confirm"ing allegations of misleading use of sources. In short, the ruling permits one to infer ArbCom found all arguments on one side to be persuasive, and none on the other side, which would seem to reflect poorly on ArbCom's impartiality and not to account for the mediator's finding of bilateral unwillingness. In its generic reply I fail to understand independently why any particular argument proposed by either side is valid or not. It would be very helpful to us newcomers to see a list of, say, three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of valid allegations in each category of behavior (attacks, edit war, NPOV) as endorsed by five arbiters, along with three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of allegations in each category which fail to rise to the level of attacks, edit war, or NPOV. For instance, I failed to discern any evidences which unequivocally rose to blatant misrepresentation, complete nonsupport, and total misuse as requested. [70] I believe this specificity not only would be eminently appropriate for ArbCom to publish, but also would greatly clarify to us how evidences differed one from another and would provide clear guidance to both parties as to how enforcement should proceed. Perhaps I am making an overture uncharitable to ArbCom's methodology, in which case I apologize and await being pointed to the proper means for handling the concerns I make obvious in this paragraph. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Found an excellent, balanced example of exactly what I mean (though I have not noted any such behavior from ScienceApologist personally). [71] While I have your attention, could you also tell me if other users beside the presenter are restricted to 500 words? Could be significant, and I didn't see that policy. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

It appears I have leave to suggest the following first draft built from WP:AP#Final decision, though bland:

• XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior. (diff of Incident 1) (diff of Incident 2) (further diffs) Repeated six times, where "Elonka" and "PHG" are each cross-combined with "personal attacks", "edit warring", and "pushing point of view". The "has not" cases would include 3 or 4 diffs presented formerly as evidence but which did not rise to the level of the disruptive behavior.
• User Elonka is reminded of the community's limitation against conduct unbecoming to admins, particularly attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, failure to communicate, and gross breach of trust. (responsive to FayssalF)
• User PHG is reminded to provide means to verify sources that most members of the Community cannot access. (responsive to FloNight)

This seems responsive to the initial request. The alternative requests and proposals seem a strange interpretation of the extant remedy that PHG is encouraged to contribute to mainspace, and I repeat my call for ArbCom to provide clear characterization of its decision and this particular remedy. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Nsk92

I have become aware of this case only recently, while participating in an AfD discussion, currently still ongoing, for the article Christian Polak that PHG created. I will say for the record that I have never before crossed paths with PHG, was not involved in and was not aware of the ArbCom case regarding PHG and, even of this moment, am not familiar with the details of this case (nor do I want to learn about them). I have zero interest in the history of Franco-Japanese or Franco-Mongol relations and only participated in the AfD discussion because it was listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. The AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak had some tense moments but proceeded relatively peacefully for a while. However, it then had a flare-up of high drama and by now this AfD has become a rather unpleasant place and I plan to stay away from it. The immediate precursor to this flare-up was an edit by PHG [72] to Christian Polak. This edit introduced a statement that Pollak was awared Légion d'honneur (Chevalier) in 1989. If true, this would certainly have established the subject's notability. However, the reference given by PHG was a site in Japanese [73]. It turned out that PHG mistranslated the content of that site and it was eventually confirmed that Polak received a lesser civil award, Ordre national du Mérite. When the mistake was pointed out by other users, PHG quickly corrected the wrong info [74]. PHG was reported to AE by User:Jehochman, quickly blocked by User:Coren and quickly unblocked by User:El_C (see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak).

Several comments regarding this episode. Certainly, under normal circumstances, a mistake like that made by PHG in this case would not have warranted a block. However, it appears that in this particular case the editor, PHG, was on probation and was warned to be particularly careful with sources. I do not have an opinion regarding whether this block was justified, but what happened here certainly gives one pause, especially since PHG knew that this was a controversial AfD and that he had to be particularly diligent with his edits. I must say that, providing a Japanese website, without giving translation, as a source for a major French governmental award, strikes me as distinctly imprudent, even for an editor who was not on an ArbCom probation for problematic sourcing.

PHG does have his passionate defenders, such as User:John J. Bulten. I am somewhat sympathetic to their arguments that PHG was under a lot of pressure to quickly provide some evidence of notability for Polak since an AfD was filed so quickly after the article was created. But it does not really justify playing with matches next to a gas tank. The article should have been prepared carefully in a Sandbox first, and many of the current problems might have been avoided.

I must say, however, that I am less than positively impressed by the involvement of some of the PHG's prior opponents in this particular AfD. I think that Jehochman jumped the gun with his AE enforcement request and that Elonka's comments in the AfD did not particularly help to keep the temperature down.

I don't know what all of this means for this ArbCom case but I hope that we can avoid having AfDs degenerate into these kinds of battles in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jumped the gun? I have been waiting patiently since September 2007 for somebody to stop the steady flow of unverifiable, or verification failing material, by PHG into Wikipedia. Forgive me for being hasty, but I have already waited a very long time. Jehochman ^Talk 04:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

I received a request to comment on a specific side discussion without being notified that the case itself was under a review request. This has just now come to my attention. The stricture on Medieval history needs revision because the designation is basically a European era and does not graft well onto east Asian topics. Apparently PHG is fluent in Japanese. Durova^Charge! 04:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

I could support a mechanism, such as binding mentorship, that would be set up to better ensure the extended restrictions work. But I do not feel that it makes sense to block PHG indefinitely until it's up and running. Also, Elonka needs to find something else to do if she continues to be so hostile to anyone who isn't in full agreement with her. Her "request" earlier today to that I "think hard about whether or not you feel that you are genuinely suited to keep on being an administrator" doesn't inspire confidence. Thank you. El_C 05:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If there were mentorship, I would support removal of the topic restrictions, as they would no longer be needed. It is clear to me that the problem is related to sourcing methodology, not any particular topics. Jehochman ^Talk 05:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly; that's why I didn't use the word "topic" above. It does increasingly appear to be more of a universal methodological issue, than an historiographical one (as we first thought). I think in that event, the (binding) mentorship would, in effect, be the restrictions. El_C 05:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This notwithstanding his tendency to overemphasize on Franco-*Asiatic connectedness (in general). El_C 06:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I known best about, and am best positionned to contribute. I also wrote a lot about British people or Americans in Japan though (William Adams (sailor), Anglo-Japanese relations, Japan-United States relations), but that's less of my area. Best regards :) PHG (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant as an historiographical leaning, though maybe I could have phrased it more precisely. El_C 06:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse also. Anthøny 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• I've asked PHG to shorten his statement, at 752 words, it's well past the guideline. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm minded to proposed an extension to our ruling to include everything, not just articles, given the sub-page issue (which goes clearly against the spirit of the ruling, as AGK notes). James F. (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to wait for user:Elonka's statement before commenting. Has anyone verified the sources used for France-Japan relations (19th century)? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• After verifying myself some sources and hearing Elonka's statement I now support James' remedy and remind PHG that a serious encyclopaedia requires serious references - especially when dealing with important subjects. PHG needs to take this essential principle to heart regardless of the fact of being restricted to an area or another and regardless of assuming good faith or not. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I will also ask Elonka to let other admins deal with the situation. Her multiple interventions has not been helping this case at all. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support extending our ruling to include other Wikipedia pages, not just articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support James's suggestion that we extend our ruling to include everything since the disruption is not going away. Hopefully, PHG will listen to the concerns expressed by the Committee that he needs to change his approach. As FayssalF says, encyclopedia content needs to have verifiable reliable sources. Occasional use of a rare source is not a big problem, but regularly relying on sources that most members of the Community can not access is problem especially when there are more than a few disputes about the content. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Carcharoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [75]
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self-added)
• All of the current arbitration committee that were active and recused on this case (will notify separately) [76]

Statement by Carcharoth

Could the arbitration committee please clarify what has or has not resulted from the final principle and the associated remedy in the IRC case, namely: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Policy issues surrounding IRC and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC#IRC, and what is planned for the future, if anything. The principle in full is:

"The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case. passed 7-1 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

The remedy in full is:

"Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee. passed 9-0 with 1 abstention at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Updated 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - About a week ago, when filing this request, I contacted 13 arbitrators on their talk pages regarding this request for clarification (see here). These were the current arbitrators who were listed as active on the case, or who recused themselves. So far, four have responded: FT2, Newyorkbrad, Paul August and Jdforrester (James F). Of the other nine, eight have edited Wikipedia since I contacted them (the other one has not edited in some time and has a break notice on their talk page), but have not responded here, or on their talk page. I note that FT2 has left a note here saying that he is dealing with other issues at the moment which take priority, which is fair enough. Should we take the silence of most of the other arbitrators to mean that the committee have left FT2 to deal with this? And if the arbitration committee have done this delegation (which I would in some ways prefer to long-winded committee decisions), why can't they just say so? Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No such formal delegation has been made. Paul August ☎ 05:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I can state that several other channel ops and I have been working hard to take the communities views in hand when we have been discussing how to handle future behavioural issues in the channel. The first thing we've done is created guidlines for the channel which all users of the channel are aware of. These can be found here. The problems highlighted in the IRC case are mainly because members of the channel didn't understand what was expected of them and the channel operators didn't really know their role in stopping behavioural problems. The operators have now decided to take a more proactive role in the enforcement of channel standards, and all users are aware that if they start discussing people behind their backs, start being offensive or anything else which could be seen from the outside as unacceptable, they'll have their access removed. Obviously sometimes a warning may suffice, but in serious incidents, we'll remove on sight.

What we've also done is made the access list public, so any IRC user can see exactly who has access to the channel. On wiki, we've created User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info) so that everyone is aware exactly who has access to the channel, and who the channel operators are. If there's a concern with someones conduct, then anyone is welcome to contact one of the ops and it will be taken extremely seriously and we'll of course keep you informed of what is happening. At present, we're currently debating the role of non administrators in the channel and whether or not they should keep their access. We've had no consensus either way up to this point, but we'll keep on going highlighting both the benefits and disadvantages.

The channel has moved on a lot since the case and although there hasn't been any direction from ArbCom, the internal running and operation has taken a lot from the case and everything is now much clearer regarding expected standards and routes for ops to take if there are problems. If people have concerns, just contact one of us. I'm sure the arbitration committee would also be willing to hear of problems if the ops haven't dealt with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Related suggestion from Wetman

If the access list has been made public, can Ryan Postlethwaite ensure that it is entered in some acceptable fashion at Wikipedia:IRC channels, so that more ordinary Wikipedians like myself could actually access it?--Wetman (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a new proposed page. Please see User:Ryan Postlethwaite/IRC. This would replace the old admins channel wikipedia space page so it has to go through DRV which can be found at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 26#Wikipedia:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I linked the list at WP:IRC in the header of the WEA section, some weeks ago. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Related suggestion from Lawrence Cohen

Can we get this list of users updated to seperate out admins from non-admins, with a direct 1:1 relationship shown what IRC handle connects with what English Wikipedia username? Lawrence § t/e 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done this at User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info). I linked the ones I knew of the top of my head and non-admins are in bold. John Reaves 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Related query by Bishonen

"Just contact one of us"..? Er, how? Why are people expected to know the way to CBrowns userspace if they have been treated badly on the channel? Why isn't there a public board in Wikipedia space (linked to from WP:AN and similar) where complaints can be dealt with by senior ops? Bishonen | talk 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

It should be noted that the anchored redirect WP:WEA broke when the header it redirected to was changed with this edit on 6 March. I've just fixed it, so now people can go straight to the big red box with the link to the guidelines when they click on WP:WEA. From there, they should be able to find someone to complain to. This is a work in progress, and I'm sure suggestions you make will be discussed. Any ideas for a suitable on-wiki talk page to discuss things? Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me commenting here Bish, please feel fee to move it if you want. I agree that CBrowns userspace isn't ideal, but people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins. I personally wouldn't mind it being in a more accessible location and it would be a good idea to link it more widely so that people are clear where and who to go to and the expected conduct of the users in the channel. I'm not sure a public board is a great idea for this, if there are problems, it would most likely involve passing logs to channel operators, or the channel operators getting evidence from logs which shouldn't be posted on-wiki. I personally don't have a problem with people coming to my talk page with their concerns and I'll communicate with them on wiki regarding the steps that I'm taking to resolve them - I just don't think a dedicated noticeboard is such a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment on that - that was taken care of at the same time, earlier this month. I linked the entire channel guidelines (including where to seek help and who are the channel operators) from WP:IRC#wikipedia-en-admins specifically to ensure that question had an answer, and those needing to know how to find the guidelines and help, could know.

I also added as a second measure, also earlier this month, a section to WP:IRC covering #Problems and help, and to be sure that was visible relinked it as well from near the top of the page too. It gives full details on how to seek help if there is a problem on an IRC channel. The pages they link to contain full details of every person in any kind of channel op role, on en-admins and more generally, for much of English Wikipedia IRC. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins" - that wasn't my perception at all. People didn't seem to have a problem with it - they seemed to have a problem with the proclamation that there were "special rules" for that page, that only certain editors were allowed to touch it, it wasn't subject to consensus, and that presence there was a privilege above and beyond anything else. Achromatic (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Given that the remedy the committee passed was that the committee would address this issue, the activity Ryan discusses, while likely meritorious, does not actually fulfill the remedy. Is there a status update as to the committee's activity? GRBerry 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

First, I think this space should probably be reserved to ask the committee for an update on their views of IRC governance etc., and discussion of Bishonen's excellent question should be moved elsewhere (including my comments below, should someone be so bold as to start such a discussion).

I think a noticeboard for IRC chanops would be an excellent idea. Now, this gets a bit esoteric and lawyerish, but it seems to be the current situation that IRC is recognized as an independent creature, with different rules of conduct and methods of dispute resolution, and that Wikipedia has no authority to mandate any particular channel behavior or dispute resolution process. However, that does not mean that the chanops could not choose for their own convenience to host a noticeboard on Wikipedia. I think a noticeboard is an excellent idea because it will allow issues to be discussed by more than just the ops who happen to be online at a given moment, and it will have archives, including a record of when and why a user was added or removed from the channel that IRC itself does not provide. There already seems to be a sort of noticeboard at User talk:Cbrown1023/Guidelines.

However, hosting the noticeboard and associated policies/contact lists/dispute resolution processes in Wikipedia space presents the same problem it did before; it suggests that anyone can edit it, when in fact only the participants in IRC have a say and only the chanops (appear to) have the final say. So it may be necessary either to host the pages in project space but grant them an exemption from "everyone can edit" or to keep them in user space but raise their profile through linkage or even transclusion. Thatcher 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, IRC is not reccognised as an independent creature with separate and different rules. Jimbo, himslf, made this very clear here [77]. Giano (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Further plea and misplaced clarification by Bishonen (but if not here, then where?)

I'm replying here to FT2's response to Carcharoth's basic question why the final principle "The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case" (passed 7-1) and its associated remedy "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" (passed 9-0), have both come to naught. My post goes to clarifying the committee's final principles and remedies as they relate to en-admins IRC case—it's not about FT2's block of Giano—therefore I post it here, in preference to drowning it at the now extremely copious discussion of that block on WP:AE (most of it posted by FT2). Yes, I know I'm not supposed to post in this section, which is for arbs, but it seems my only chance of being heard. (I won't post again, whether or not you remove me from this spot, Thatcher. This has taken me much too much time as it is.)

Like probably most people, I feel at an awful disadvantage when attempting to discuss or debate with FT2, since he seems impressively able to write about 100 lines in the space of time that it takes your average wikipedian to write 20, and me to write 5. (And NYBrad to write 70 or so.) My efforts in the direction of debate with FT2 have always literally drowned. But I will try just once to do my own clarification. I made an effort to come to grips with the background to FT2's new guidelines for IRC (at this moment not available in CBrown's space, but mirrored at [78])—these guidelines being the only mouse that has so far been born from the laboring mountains of the IRC case, and it's final principles and remedies. The background to the guidelines, as offered by FT2 in channel to anybody interested, turned out to be an edited log of a discussion between FT2 and some 6 or 10 channel users (by FT2's own estimate) from February 25-26. I have it here. It's been edited by FT2 to remove irrelevancies, and consists–well, I don't have any counting tool that will work for this— but at my rough estimate, the discussion consists to at least 80% of FT2 himself talking, mainly describing how well the channel works now:

(Exact quote of log)

• <FT2> irc runs well now (here)
• <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
• <FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise"
• <FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code"
• <FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down...
• <FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise
• <FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here
• <FT2> its nice
• <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
• <FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not.

I discussed these matters with FT2 in PM on IRC several times, before he actually sent me the above log to look at, and I was rather shocked by his descriptions of that log. Here's a snippet of our discussion from March 5, posted with permission.

(Exact quote except that an e-mail address and a couple of typos have been removed.)

• <bishonen> may I have a copy of the full discussion of the channel? there was something about that in the header before.
• <FT2-away> sure :)
• its enacted now but there wasnt any controversy on it -- most folks reaction was "yeah, commonsense"
• <bishonen> thanks
• <FT2-away> I was just very careful to consult hugely to be sure that nobody could accidentally feel unasked or whatever. You know how it can go.
• <bishonen> i thought there was going to be a workgroup, or the arbcom would be involved.
• <FT2-away> I was thinking of the dispute over roillback.
• nah
• <bishonen> hugely?....
• <FT2-away> the channel basically sorted it out, about 6 or 10 people, everyone was pretty much "yeah, commonsense" by the time it was done
• <bishonen> so more people than the users of this channel were invoived?
• <FT2-away> no...
• <bishonen> i see
• <FT2-away> but there are a lot of users here... and of course those include a load of people who arent often here
• <bishonen> that's not hugely in my book, i'm afraid. but whatever.
• <FT2-away> the concern was to clean up and ensure that issues of the past were not going to be perrennial
• <bishonen> let me get this straight. only admins have been consulted? and only the minority of admins that use the admin channel?
• <FT2-away> and that's much more about people here accepting norms and considering what norms they feel apply, than about asking others... most people here or elsewhere who care about irc stuff, know what the issues are or were anyway
• <bishonen> do they?

To recapitulate: What has happened with the policy and procedures of the IRC en-admins channel since the IRC case was closed, then, is that there are now new guidelines for it in CBrown's userspace (update: no, actually at this moment in Martinp23's userspace), authored (largely) by FT2, and emphasizing how well the channel currently works.[79] The origin of the new guidelines was an IRC discussion, massively dominated by FT2 himself, on February 25-26 between FT2 and a few admins. So much for the expanded role in the governance of IRC that the ArbCom undertook in its final principle. So much for its new oversight as foreseen in the remedy it voted for. May we please have some commentary from some of the arbs besides FT2—from those that put hand to keyboard and voted for a new role of arbcom with respect to IRC—voted for changes in policy and procedure, changes to be addressed by the committee—voted 9-0 and 7-1? FloNight? Newyorkbrad? Paul August? Clarification please? Especially, clarification of that which is never clarified by anybody, but always sidestepped — the role of James Forrester as envisaged by arbcom — would be appreciated to the point of jubilation. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

What on earth does one say, reading the above - just sums up the truth of what I have been saying for weeks. Have our Arbcom anything to say to justify themselves? Or are we all to be banned for wondering, and demanding that they answer and explain themselves. Giano (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I voted oppossed to the related "principle" and abstained with regard to the related "remedy". As far as I know ArbCom has yet to take any official action with regard to either. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by White Cat

“ Users found publishing logs will be banned from all Wikimedia channels. ”

Not that I want to stir trouble but I would like to remind people the above rule. Be careful what you post here as this is a public place to publish things. I just don't want to see anyone get banned.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that these excerpts were posted by one of the participants with the explicit permission of the other; there is no issue on that front. — Coren ^(talk) 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not accusing anyone of wrong doing. In the heat of the dispute people sometimes forget such things. This was intended as a good faith reminder. Nothing more or less. -- Cat ^chi? 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

I'd make the point, speaking to the notes and log above, that the current en-admins channel does have a wide membership in terms of its views, and I think despite the thinking of some that the diversity of the community's views are actually well represented there. A recent incident (well documented elsewhere so no need to do so here) resulted in strident criticism of the channel's operations, and as a critic myself of the initial handling of the matter, I was happy with how it was ultimately resolved. Orderinchaos 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad by Bishonen

in reply to NYB's opinion (moved from below)

"Succinctly"? LOL, come on, don't be so quick to dudgeon just because it's me. You're Patient Guy with everybody else, remember? Thank you for your answer. Will you clarify it a little bit more? I guess there may not indeed be community consensus that the ArbCom should exercise control over the channel, but it's my impression that there is/was ArbCom consensus for it[80] (with the single exception of Paul August). Your own support for the principle "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" is admittedly very hedged, being predicated on it being "unfair to the parties" to keep the IRC case open any longer (not that I quite see what one thing has to do with the other — did Paul's abstention keep the case open any extra time?) As a short version, would you agree with this description of the current state of affairs: the ArbCom is, with the exception of FT2, individually and collectively in flight from taking responsibilty for the principle+remedy in question? Are you all waiting for somebody else to fulfill the passive "input should be sought"? Bishonen | talk 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

"Succinctly" was a bit of self-criticism; I'm trying to cut back on the excessive length of some of my project-space posts (although I will note with a smile that I share your assessment that I will never be the longest-winded arbitrator so long as FT2 is serving on the committee alongside me).

The relationship between my vote and closing the case is that traditionally a case is not closed until all the pending substantive proposals have been voted on. The alternative to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later" would have been keeping the case open to address them now, and that would have prolonged the case, including the pendency of remedy proposals against several editors (including yourself) that you and I were both strongly opposed to.

I fear that "in flight" could be considered an NPOV term. I have acknowledged that we have not, or have not yet, collectively followed up on the agenda item of exerting control over the #admins channel. But I am not sure that we should be criticized for not implementing ArbCom governance of the channel without some evidence that either the denizens of the channel or the community at large (the views of both are entitled to strong consideration) wants us to do such a thing. In fact, putting aside the solicitation of the views of the whole community, I am not sure what you personally believe the committee should do at this time to implement the remedy cited and exercise responsibility over the channel, if we were to approach the matter collectively rather than individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Diverging from the committee as collective for a moment, I certainly honor you individually for supporting Paul August's motion to dismiss the case.[81]) I'm aware of that tradition, but I thought voting against, or explicitly abstaining on, a substantive proposal counted as "voting on" it, too. No? Keeping the case open can't very well have been the only alternative to voting support to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later". There was always the possibility of an (at the time) obviously impopular but franker and less foot-shuffling counterproposal that "issues relating to the channel will not be addressed by this committee, and as for James Forrester, forgeddabaddit. " Kicking the ball discreetly into my court ("what you personally believe the committee should do at this time") won't help either, I'm afraid. I have no straw for your collective bricks. If I had, I'd gladly offer it. But, to reverse a classic wiki-saying, [82] I'm not ArbCom's mother. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

The arbcom voted to address the issues, Jimbo told you that you have the "Jimbo given" authority, now cut the crap all of you get in there and do as you told us you were going to do. 9 Arbs voted to address the issues. So far we have seen FT2 and someone called Ryan Postlethwaite talk about how there is no problem. We all know too many bad blocks have been orchestrated there, and too much discussed with non-admins and toadies, so time to clean it up. If you are too frightened to solve the problems, then dissolve the channel. Incidentally where are these 9 brave Arbs who voted to address the problem in return for placing me on civility patrol? Has there been some form of unreported massacre? I don't believe I have read any reports of it? Now come on, cut the crap and address the problem. You Arbs enjoy banning me, now you keep to your side of the bargain - or does James Forrester rule you? Giano (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Irpen

The saga over IRC is not new and the abuse grew since its inception. It first came to public light in the Fall 2006. The IRC got so frightened by the public reaction and by the evidence seeing the light that it called it a "coup d'etat attempt" (this post made my day). Shortly the mess called Giano-I ArbCom was dubbed (aptly but imprecisely) an uprising of writing admins while in fact it was an uprising of Wikipedia writing community against the Wikipedia being "run" by its self-appointed ever-chatting in secret "elite" that dubbed that very community as "fickle and ill-informed populace".

Once some facts came out in the open, the 2007 passed with IRC resisting to give ground and claiming that everything is good to much of the community disgust. However, what was originally seen as "IRC" got developed into a new mentality. This culminated in Durova case and another messy discovery of the existence of the secret "lists" run on Wikia servers where good editors were investigated the Wikipedia Review style by a newly arrived layer of self-appointed "leaders and protectors of Wikipedia". Each of these messes brought some good revelations (and good desysoppings) but their usefulness by far exceeded that.

They where eye openers. Giano-I case revealed the phenomenon, the Durova case showed the extent to which the malfeasance penetrated. It was in this context that a mysterious and never heard of user (just like the author of Giano-I case) submitted a new case (originally also dubbed Giano) which was renamed "IRC" and portrayed as the case about "warring over WP:WEA" when editors of the "fickle and ill-informed" side tried to make the page reflecting the reality while David Gerard and his friends insisted on explicit rights over the Wikipedia page and on the the hypocritically convenient and deliberate lack of clarity over the connection between #admins and the Wikipedia

The ArbCom for whatever reason accepted a case over David Gerard's WP:WEA page just as quickly as it accepted the original (Giano-I) case. ArbCom then produced a decision with a bunch of findings and remedies totally disconnected from each other. Nevertheless, the committee took it upon itself to address the IRC problems at a later time leaving the community under an impression that " Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee". Community hoped to see something meaningful, like a workgroup proposed by Flo. Later, "no consensus from ArbCom was found for this proposal" (note passive voice).

Soon the community "was told" that the adequate measures "were taken" through the channel's "self-policing" decided through "discussion" that occurred... nowhere else but at #admins itself. A paradox? I happened to have seen this "discussion". It was basically one arb/chanellop saying things and others nodding. This is a strange kind of "discussion" where an input from those "allegedly" abused by #admins is glaringly lacking. But let's see whether the channel improved and the problems are now "addressed" like we've heard time and again. Here is a random (not exclusive by any means) list of events (note recent dates) that took place at #admins and how they were "addressed".

1. Feb. 7, 2008: Admin Moreschi roamed into a channel out of the blue exclusively to whine about Irpen. I think it is worse that he spoke about me behind my back having no courage to say things in my face than the particular word "a bastard" he chose, but that aside, he was met at the channel by a level-30 chanellop. That chanellop told Moreschi that he "probably shouldn't do it somewhere so leaky" and tried to alleviate Moreschi's worries by reminding Moreschi "Well, you've still got a block button" "*chanellop hints". This pleasant conversation had several consequences:
   1. When I confronted Moreschi about his conduct this person had no courage to respond at all
   2. However, my request for explanation did prompt a discussion at... (sigh) #admins. The discussion was not about the Moreschi's conduct though. Instead it was about "leaks" and it was initiated by another channelop
   3. Yet another level-30 channelop was present at the channel, took part in discussion and did nothing of consequence
   4. The case was finally analyzed by yet another level-30 channelop and a sitting arbitrator, (see here). The analysis called this blockshopping and a request to take it somewhere "less leaky" as an attempt to restrain Moreschi. Case thus considered "handled".
2. March 13, 2008 an admin blocked for a clear case of 3RR came to the channel to shop for an unblock. He called his content opponents, long time contributors with a long history of content writing, "two POV-trolls". Again, the user, a long time champion of citing WP:CIV, had no courage to say things of that sort to their face, but at #admins it was considered "OK": not only wasn't he called to order, but he talked himself out of the block. Details available here and here
3. March 14, 2008, an admin who is widely active in wikipolitics (an arbcom clerk, no less, among other things) called a female user "a bitch" (in her absense) over her attempt to draw attention to her pet project through posting a call for participation at another user's talk (she later reverted that). At this time, the admin was politely asked to cut it by an arbitrator who was at the channel. The admin's response to the call to order was defiant, he claimed that he would have said the same in her face. There is no evidence that the said admin went ahead and said this to her face, which I think, although revolting, would be less objectionable than doing so behind the woman's back, but that maybe just me. The admin was not sanctioned in any way although it would have likely prevented an incident below that took place just hours later.
4. On the same date, an IRC admin who happens to be a [former?] "volunteer Communications Coordinator at the WMF" called an absent non-admin user "an idiot and a moron" over this, perhaps a gullible but honest mistake without a doubt. There was no action at the channel
5. Mar 25, 2008: A different but a very IRC active admin who tried to bait Giano with "civility policing" warnings and questions had his comments removed. He ran to the channel asking "someone else" to help "to stop fucking with my questions to Giano so I dfon't have to edit war?" [sic] Is it just me or others see a double paradox in this all being over the civility policing itself (1) and the help being asked so that "[he does]n't have to edit war" (2) ?

(To avoid more red faces, I did not name some of the users and only provided the names in the cases that have been already discussed onwiki).

Now, we clearly see that the channel remains abusive. We also see that the despite some claims to the contrary, the current system of "good ombudsmanship" does not work. One does not need to be exceptionally smart to explain why:

1. This whole idea of ombundsmanship by "good" ops of such closed media as checkuser log and #admins can only work with proactive ombudsmans since affected users usually don't know about being abused. So, channelops have to act vigilantly upon each case of abuse even if they found out purely by accident. Otherwise, it is all meaningless.
2. The corrupted medium cannot be fixed from within by definition. Attempts of outside reform are vigorously thwarted but not by the "community", as some suggest, but by no one other than the channel's regulars
3. This all continues for so long due to a deliberately maintained ambiguity of the channel's status that allows those who shared David Gerard's views and preferences to both claim the cake and eat it too. Not only attempts to improve the channel meaningfully are thwarted, the attempts to disconnect the channel from the Wikipedia are thwarted too. In a bizarre twist, the attempts to subject the channel to a meaningful WP oversight are also thwarted (and again only by the channel enthusiasts.)

I am sure that immediately upon my posting this will be discussed at the channel whose name you guessed right or even at one of the other "less leaky" channels. Surprisingly, I predict that the discussion will be again not on the substance but on the leaks themselves, just like in the Moreschi's incident.

We walked a long way since the Fall of 2006. On one hand we are by far better aware that backroom activity is thriving. OTOH, more people are now involved. A whole bunch now are on some channel: the #admins, "that other less leaky one" or one of its twins. Among those who are not (as well as who are) a whole bunch are on some "lists", yet unpurged Arbcom-L, a second (or third or more) Arbcom-L, the WR-style "investigations" list, etc (note: I do not have anything against the anti-harassment list particularly if it is held on topic). This list/channel tradition in addition to a direct devastating effect on the project, created a secondary effect. There are now POV-pushing and nationalist e-lists and IM networks. Instead of wikiprojects (many of which are dying), we have IRC-projects that are not transparent (e.g., the USRoads IRC related to another recent Arbcom case.) This atmosphere procreated by #admins is now corroding the good of Wikipedia.

Yes, people can (and will) talk privately. But we should not encourage it directly and, most importantly, should not sanction abuse at the officially affiliated IRC channels (by refusing to act or pretend that all is well), or disclaim the affiliation but refuse to dissociate either (cake have/eat) procreating this deliberate, hypocritical and morally indefensible limbo.

Clean up the #admins in a meaningful way or remove all links to it and let the folks have their chat, just like the team tags do! This all are not new ideas and have been stated in some form multiple times. However, please don't talk the "channel is now good and reformed". It just does not cut it and the editors would not believe such claims anymore anyway.

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Good questions by all, and I'll have a go at an answer, but it probably won't be brief. Others will obviously have their view too. Firstly, some background reading for anyone unfamiliar with matters - and that includes a number of people who might feel they are familiar. I tried to describe the main points of the background on IRC as I see it (both sides) at: WP:RFC/IRC channels#Comment by FT2. It's "essential background" on the issue and dynamics, and forms the context of the decisions and any reply.

In the meantime I'm fitting drafting a fuller reply in between working stuff in my wiki-in-tray, as well as ever-present real world matters. I'll try to get it posted later today but it could be tomorrow or even a day beyond. That's unavoidable in a way -- the question actually asks for a short report in a way, rather than the usual simple opinion, since "measures taken" are meaningless without an understanding of the context, the disputes, and the various perspectives involved. And of course, a few have very strong views which in fact don't competely match reality, and that will be tricky to explain to them (as can happen in any dispute). So given the subject, it needs to be a bit more thorough. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Update - events were rather busy here last week, as noted (and here too). This last few days I've been more involved in pushing to 'go live' on BLP-related matters that will help BLP subjects (members of the public). Prioritization. Hence a delay. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Newyorkbrad:

I will respond as Bishonen requests, while trying my best to heed her implied request that I do so succinctly.

Personally, I have not played a role in the governance of #admins or any other IRC channel, although I log into the channel from time to time (less often now than I did a few months ago, as it happens). Frankly, I think I am not alone among the arbitrators in not yet figured out quite how best to implement Jimbo Wales' request that the Arbitration Committee play a new role in overseeing channel governance. Nor is it clear to me that there is community consensus that the ArbCom, as such, should exercise control over the channel. Not only does there remain a lack of clarity as to the relationship, if any, between Wikipedia and the "Wikipedia" named IRC channels, but there remain very mixed views as to whether that lack of clarity is unacceptable, tolerable, or affirmatively desirable. Nor has there been further discussion so far as I am aware concerning the role of Jdforrester in this regard. As reflected in his contribution history, James has had to take some extended wikibreaks this year for real-world reasons and to the best of my knowledge has not been a participant in any matters related to the channel(s) for at least several weeks.

In the absence of a committee decision or consensus on how to proceed, individual arbitrators have tried to take the lead: first FloNight, by proposing the creation of a work group (a proposal that did not attain critical mass to go forward), and then FT2 with his proposal and adopting of channel guidelines. Other proposed initiatives to address concerns about the #admins channel, such as the suggestion that the access of everyone who is not an English Wikipedia admininstrator be revoked, have not attained consensus among users of the channel, and the new chan-ops have apparently decided not to implement them over widespread objections. The Arbitration Committee as a whole was not the decision-maker on this or any related issues. It bears note, however, that at least one controversial former participant in #admins, Tony Sidaway, has permanently relinquished his access to the channel and my sense is that there is no prospect of such access being restored save in the unlikely event he were to have a new and successful RfA.

If there is a perception that the committee needs to act on its adopted remedy to address issues relating to the administrators' IRC channel, then community input should be sought regarding what changes, if any, should be made. On whether this should be done now, or whether some time should be allowed to pass so we can judge whether the new guidelines have a salutary effect as sought by FT2 and others, I have no strong view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I recused from the Arbitration case for obvious reasons; since the case closed, I have been asked by a group of people who I judged (in my rôle as IRC Group Contact) to be representatives of the #wikipedia-en-admins community to carry out a few actions. However, I am (as intended) hands-off and, as Brad mentions, I have not particularly participated in any discussions regarding the channel's organisational aspects. James F. (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment by FloNight.

By custom, and widely supported by the Community and the Arbitration Committee, the Arbitration Committee is not a legislative body. We do not write policy for the Community except as it directly relates to the Committee's procedures and practices. The Arbitration Committee's role is to assist the Community in settling disputes where user conduct issues are stopping the Community from making thoughtful consensus decisions about content or policy, or when user conduct issues are seriously disrupting the Community in other ways. Traditionally, the Arbitration Committee is the source all involuntary removal of administrative tools for misuse of the tools.

My interpretation of Jimbo's comment is that he is stating his view that the Arbitration Committee has the authority to settle user conduct problems that occur in #wikipedi-en-admins, if the the usual dispute resolution processes in this channel does not work. I do not think that he is suggesting that the Arbitration Committee is charged with writing the policy for the channel or to be involved in the daily administration of the channel. His request that arbitrators have an influence over the daily administration of the channel is also noted. (This is my interpretations of Jimbo's comments, I realize that other interpretations are possible.)

Since misconduct in the #admins channel might be related to the use of administrative tools or possibly involve a lack of decorum that is expected of Wikipedia administrators, it is reasonable to think that an arbitration case might be warranted if a serious type of administrative misconduct occurs.

At a minimum, in order for the Arbitration Committee actions related to the channel to be reliable and effective, the Committee needs an accurate record of the alleged dispute to compare with established channel guidelines. Prior to the start of the IRC case neither accurate logs or channel guidelines were available for our review. Establishing these were a priority and the first action taken.

I would like to note that other methods for establishing Community consensus regarding #admins have been suggested but none have received the level of support for Community to take action on them at this time. Other suggestions related to other issues related to Wikipedia IRC are also noted. I want to make special note that the Committee received comments on site and by email from editors who primarily edit other Foundation projects that expressed opinions about the Committee's relationship to all Wikimedia Freenode IRC channels. (My comment follows.)

1. A Working group focused on establishing policies that adhere to joint Wikipedia English and IRC standards of conduct. (Not enough support for a separate body to write new policies. I'm uncertain that this is needed.)
2. Establish/review user conduct guideline for all Wikipedia English related IRC channels. (Not enough support at this time. I support a discussion about the merits of this type of a review.)
3. Chan op elections on Wikipedia English for #admin channel. (Not enough support and uncertain that this is needed.)
4. Requiring that the current chan ops read and agree to enforce #admin channel guidelines. (Suggestion has not been widely discussed as far as I know so I'm unclear it has been rejected. I support this idea.)
5. Monitor all Wikipedia English related IRC channels for user conduct issues with logs and other means of observation of conduct. (Not received adequate discussion since Jimbo's comments regarding ArbCom's relationship to IRC.)
6. A notice board for concerns about IRC channels to be discussed. (Not enough support at this time for consensus to establish it and have chan ops available on the notice board.)
7. Monthly meeting on site to address IRC related concerns. Possible in connection with a noticeboard. (Not consensus for the need.)
8. Close #admin. (No consensus.)

Future Committee action for consideration:

1. Update Arbitration Committee policy to reflect a consensus agreement of Jimbo's statements about IRC.
2. Continue to in listen to the Community for suggestions about the best ways that the Arbitration Committee assist with IRC related issues. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification/amendment: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Moreschi

It is not clear to me whether the "area of conflict" for ARBAA2 is solely Armenian-Azeri articles, or whether it includes Azeri-Iranian/Iranian/Turkish articles, as I think it should, given it was these Perso-Turkic disputes that was partly responsible for kicking off the arbitration case in question. Going back over my little list I find a good number of Perso-Turkic arbcom cases: given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to extend, if necessary, the Armenia-Azeri discretionary sanctions to include Azeri-Iranian/Armenian-Turkish/etc. Just to clarify, I think the "area of conflict" for discretionary sanctions should be "articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". This accords with {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}}, but there seems to be dispute over the matter, not to mention confusion. So, do the discretionary sanctions apply only to Armenia-Azeri articles, or are we permitted a broader scope? Moreschi (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nishkid64

I have no problem broadening the "area of conflict" to include Turkey and Iran. The only reason I brought up this issue was because Moreschi reworded the AA2 remedy without consultation or clarification from ArbCom. In response to bainer's comments, I must disagree with his interpretation of the two areas of conflicts. To me, "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" just refers to Armenia and Azerbaijan, while the other area of conflict covers Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran. The latter is not the same, as it addresses topics covered in separate ArbCom cases. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

My understanding is that the sanctions should apply to Iran and Turkey too as they involve related conflicts (particularly the Persian-Azeri/Iranian-Turkic edit war and issues relating to the Armenian Genocide). One user, ChateauLincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has already been restricted under these sanctions simply for edit-warring on an article about an Iranian city which has little to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan. I think the AA2 remedy should be reworded in line with the template to clarify matters. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev

I am against broadening the scope of the remedies. The intended scope of the arbcom and remedies was always Azerbaijan and Armenia and related issues, while there might be problems on Turkey and Iran articles but they were outside the arbcom scope. If we include Turkey and Iran we get a huge geographical and historical areas covered by a very few (often tendentious) editors. If we include it to the scope we could easily get all the active editors there banned on a whim. We should also remember that the buck does not stop here. We have huge Turkey-Greece, Turkey-Kurdish, Kurdish-Arab, Iran-Arab, Iran-Afghanistan problems so why not include Arabic, Greek and Afghani editors as well, then we would notice Arab-Israeli, Greek-Macedonian, USA-Arabic editorial conflicts and we would broad the scope of the remedies to the half of the wikieditors. Lets not extend the scope of the remedies on a whim we need a line here Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by White Cat

I think the arbcom remedies are far too harsh. There currently is a martial law in the articles covered by this case making it very unpleasant to make any kind of edits. Particularly in experienced new users are bitten to death. Also good users avoid these articles due to the near-malicious attempts to abuse the remedies. So you are pretty much left with a group of disruptive users battling each other editing from multiple sockpuppet accounts. Of course this is an oversimplification of the issue but still something to think about.

Really disruptive users do not obey the arbcom remedies and edit through sockuppets. While reviewing logs for the case below I noticed the block log of Fadix which was quite recently reset making it the 4th reset. Such users should perhaps be indef banned for good. I gave Fadix as an example pretty much randomly, any other ban evaders should share the same faith.

Rather that expanding the scope of the case, users that edit disruptively should be penalized for gaming the system. The second you expand the scope disruptive users will find a new topic to disrupt, away from the remedies in question.

Also, based on my experience I feel several of the involved admins are far too involved and are unable to make sound judgments. It might be necesary to review their conduct.

-- Cat ^chi? 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Remedies 1 and 2 can be narrowly read in such a way that they seem to cover different articles for different editors. The amended remedy did not redefine the scope of the case, and only says, "area of conflict." However, the last time this issue was brought before the committee, the answer was that it was the intent of the committee that the same scope and remedies apply to all editors, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Clarification request October 2007. Thatcher 10:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The January motion essentially substituted in our more recent boilerplate for general discretionary sanctions; it made no change to the original scope of the discretionary sanctions, which was "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". For the original supervised editing sanction the more explicit wording "any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" was used, though to me those are exactly the same, the latter merely being more precise. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think the wording has to be tightened. Obviously the case was written to control the AA problems and the effects thereof, meaning clashes between A or A against Iran or A or A against Turkey. As the wording stands, something which does not have AA as a common factor, eg, something about the Hittites or even some ancient archaeology like Ephesus or Ahmadinejad and Jews can be put under this sanction if a dispute arises. I think it'll have to include the provision of "Turkish and Iranian history and ethnic issues that are related to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Request for appeal: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Formerly Coolcat) (initiator)
• Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Anatolmethanol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Drosophilawhodoestnotfly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Rodolui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Didodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  1 year ban per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Fadix banned (ban reset on 25 February 2008)

• Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka D73733C8-CC80-11D0-B225-00C04FB6C2F5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Note to Cool Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Diyarbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Indef blocked per rfar discussion and recently per comment

• Stereotek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Karl Meier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Inactive since 14 February 2008

Appeal by White Cat

Too long... *click* -- Cat ^chi? 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

I really don't recommend altering this. White Cat is still the same old Armenian-bashing, anti-Kurd POV-pusher he was back at the time of the arbitration case. At the very least mediators should pretend to some faint semblance of neutrality. White Cat doesn't come close to cutting the mustard. Moreschi (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil on this page Moreschi. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. You chaps are seriously contemplating letting White Cat - White Cat - go back to mediating. And you're freaking out because I called him a POV-pusher, an entirely accurate description, as Folantin has nicely proved. Talk about screwball sense of priorities. Moreschi (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, White Cat has just made my point for me. He still thinks that the Turkish Government is a reliable source for matters relating to the Armenian Genocide and Armenian-Turkish conflict stemming from the genocide, despite countless attempts to explain to him why this is not the case. It's the old, classic fallacy of equating NPOV with middle ground. HE JUST DOES NOT GET IT. Mediators need clue as well. Moreschi (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I suggest not changing the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from AGK

I'd like to note that the remedy self-terminates when White Cat (née Cool Cat) is appointed to the Mediation Committee—not the Mediation Cabal. There's a few mentions of the MedCab in various statements and comments (I pick up on Sam's view, below, as an example). After all, one cannot be "appointed" to the Mediation Cabal, by its very nature. Just a comment, for technical accuracy purposes. AGK § 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

No thanks. White Cat's contributions to the 2005 Nanking massacre talk page are an object lesson in how NOT to mediate a contentious article. In White Cat's own words: "I tried mediating both topics and I knew nothing about them. I still don't know much as I do not care". That's the reason why it failed, not the interference of some stalker. White Cat thought that committing the fallacy of middle ground ("it's always six of one and half a dozen of the other") at enormous length was somehow equivalent to NPOV. As Bathrobe put it when, well into the mediation, White Cat asked who Koizumi was: "It is a bit rich that Cool Cat is trying to moderate this article when he doesn't even know who the current [Japanese] Prime Minister is. How can you decide what the facts are when you don't even know the basic ones"? His attempted "mediation" of the Armenian genocide article was even worse, given the obvious pro-Turkish bias of his general editing history.

An example of White Cat's "moderation" [83]: "You are obligated to recognise my authority and the authority of all moderators and they recognise yours, you are welcome to ignore me but any more Personal Attacks from you will not be tollerated. Such attacks will result in your destruction, I do not WANT your destruction. I am warning you so that you dont get destroyed. This is neither a threat nor an attack - just a freindly warning. I am a moderator and so are you. Everyone on wikipedia is a moderator. Not everyone is an Admin. I know mods who turn down admin requests as it is a lot of hard work so dont underestimate/dismiss us mods". --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to White Cat

Your point being what? I've collaborated with Moreschi on several occasions trying to maintain NPOV on Armenian-Azeri-Turkish-Iranian pages. In fact, I only noticed this appeal when I was looking for clarification on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arb regarding Iranian articles. You seem to have taken up semi-permanent residence on RFAR and ANI, so it's hardly surprising people keep stumbling across you. None of this has any bearing on the arguments I presented. --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Must be a new definition of reliable source if we're allowed to use a Turkish tourist board website trying to attract punters by presenting a history of Armenian-Turkish relations so skewed that it doesn't mention the Seljuk invasions (erm, so how exactly did the Turks get to Armenia in the first place?), the Hamidian massacres or even the Armenian genocide. Mind you, it took forever to get you to stop linking blatant hate sites like TallArmenianTale. But that's beside the point. "This is why I will not even attempt to mediate". Good. So we're all agreed now. --Folantin (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I would just point out that a meditor's main attribute is an ability to assume good faith, yet White Cat writes above "In the form of Jack Merridew, Davenbelle is still around..." despite nothing of the sort having been proved. Black Kite 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon69

I have had no real on-wiki interaction with this editor and have only known this editor through IRC though with only a small amount of time has been spent in direct conversation with him but i feel that perhaps in the spirit of this encyclopedia's OWN policy we all start assuming a little good faith. This was passed 2 years ago and time has moved on. It may be an idea to allow him an opportunity to mediate one case under supervision through MedCabal by co-mediation. Now i don't expect him to solve this case as the Cabal has far from a 100% success rate but i think what does deserve to happen is that we see how he acts. Seddon69 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Xavexgoem

I second Seddon69. I was in IRC at the time, and this seems like a common sense approach. Note that I was not canvassed; I just wandered into the conversation and was bored enough to go through the diffs in the '05 arbcom case. Conduct may have been poor at that time, but I agree with Seddon69 that this was 2 years ago and People Change. I think that allowing mediation through WP:MEDCAB would be best to allow some degree of oversight; and I recommend to White Cat that he avoid mediating issues ethnic, religious, or political (esp. in regards to SW Asia), but that would be up to him.

I don't believe I've seen him around medcab's talk page, so I don't know what the coordinators (User:PhilKnight & User:Vassyana) and other old timers would think of this. At any rate, I think it's acceptable to drop the sanction but bring transgressions to enforcement per the '05 case. A trial run, if you will. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

While I could understand White Cat being banned from mediating disputes on topics with which he is involved, is a total ban needed? Were there to be a dispute about correctly identifying certain types of flora, for example - would the project be harmed by White Cat being able to offer to assist in resolving the dispute? I would point out that users who have strong POVs that make them unsuitable to mediating in certain areas have been acknowledged to be very effective at resolving disputes in other unconnected areas. It does seem that this sanction could be made a little narrower in scope. WjBscribe 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not a clerk, but I'm going to note this here, just to let Arbcom know that per this diff Jack Merridew has self identified as a sockpuppet of blocked/banned user Davenbelle. Don't know what impact, if any, this is going to have on this request. Nick (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The remedy unusually has a built-in provision for its own termination: if White Cat can win the confidence of the community and be appointed to the Mediation cabal, the remedy is discharged. While noting that he prefers not to go down this route, I regard it as the best way of determining if he is a suitable user to act as mediator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some of the remedies and especially the long-forgotten enforcement provision contained in the Davenbelle decision are weird. It also is not completely clear to me that remedy 1 (rather than 1.1) is the one that should have been deemed to have passed. That being said, it is apparent that when this case was decided a couple of years ago, the arbitrators were pretty much unanimously convinced that White Cat's talents lie in areas unrelated to mediating disputes and that his past attempts at mediation had worsened rather than helped solve problems. I would like to ask White Cat to briefly explain what has changed since the time of that decision such that he now wants to help mediate things again. I would also ask White Cat if he would agree that any attempts at informal mediation (because the chances that he will be appointed to the Mediation Committee are non-existent) would related to areas unrelated to the topics on which he has engaged in editorial disputes recently, such as Turkish/Kurdish and episodes-and-characters-related matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, choosing 1 to pass does seem odd. I too think the underlying opinion was clear. There were two common factors (subject-matter in which White Cat has an interest, and the involvement of certain editors) which probably contributed to the failure of those attempts at mediation, but the third common factor remains White Cat's involvement. The issue for you, White Cat, is to demonstrate which of these factors is really the problem; that is, should we continue to prevent you from acting as mediator altogether, or would the better remedy be to restrict you merely from mediating disputes to do with those certain editors or certain subject-matter? It would be good if you could point to some incidences of successful mediation that you had been involved in before this remedy was passed. --bainer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wholly opposed to removing these restrictions. I do not feel that the encyclopedia project will be helped thereby. The restrictions were imposed because of real problems. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

---

User:Andries: appeal of topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba

Initiated by user:Andries. Andries (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

I request a complete lift of my topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba. It has been more than a year now. My edits on the topic were described by the arbcom as generally responsible Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Editing_by_Andries Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Editing_by_Andries and no diffs of disruptive or activist editing on the article Sathya Sai Baba were provided by the arbcom members in spite of my demand to several arb com members to back up the allegations against me with diffs. Please read the comment by user:Bishonen Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editing

If a complete lift of the topic ban is not granted then I request a partial lift e.g. only talk page or only on Sathya Sai Baba movement that contains now some (entertaining) original research POV comments. (I can give details on request) I was and still am the only serious contributor to that article and there were never serious problems with it. Please check the history to check of Sathya Sai Baba movement to see whether I am incompetent or a blatant POV pusher. [84]

Also, I purchased some of the sources as recommended by Jossi and the arbcom on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2, which is fine material on Sathya Sai Baba movement (and to a much lesser extent for Sathya Sai Baba).

This is not about anti-Sathya Sai Baba activism but about providing correct information. For example, the summary of the article Sathya Sai Baba contains as per 14 March a blunder diff that remained uncorrected as of 22 March. Sathya Sai Baba is generally not described by his followers as a godman (Hindu ascetic) and this is not supported by the listed references in Sathya Sai Baba and Godman (Hindu ascetic). Godman is a term used in Western Academics and only very rarely by followers of Sathya Sai Baba. I guess everybody agrees that nobody wants blunders to remain uncorrected in the summaries. Andries (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I want to repeat my opinion that the problem with the article was in part due to the nature of the subject and the sources available as the following quote illustrates.

The strict fact of his personal biography and manner of life are buried beneath layer upon layer of hagiography. (see esp. the works of Kasturi; also Gokak 1975). As far as I am aware no objective account of Sathya Sai Baba’s life has been written by anyone close to him. Indeed such an account may be an inherent impossibility: it unlikely that anyone who is allowed in to his inner circles would want to write in such a vein. [..]
Thus Sathya Sai Baba himself cannot be the actual subject of an account of his cult. For now, so supposedly ‘real’ Sathya Sai Baba’ can be anymore real than an imagined character in fiction.

— Lawrence A. Babb, Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, chapter Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, published by Waveland press 2000 (original publisher is by Oxford University Press 1987) ISBN 577661532, page 160

I also hope that arbcom members can review the effect of complete topic banning (incl. talk page) of long time contributors with a good knowledge of the subject and access to sources before making similar decisions. I hope that the arbcom will not repeat such flawed decisions in other cases.

Statement by uninvolved Relata refero

I have spent some time reviewing the recent history of the Sathya Sai Baba-related pages, and there is little or no doubt in my mind that the articles need a little more attention than they are currently getting. I understand User:Andries runs a website critical of this movement, but we do not at this point, I understand, view that as a direct CoI. I note also that there are some examples I can think of of "topic experts" who are known to be major critics of individuals/movements and yet are visible participants in editing/discussing articles on those individuals or movements. This has produced few major problems (though some drama, I suppose), but, more to the point, seems to be acceptable by our current community standards.

I urge ArbCom to lift this restriction, because the quality of the articles needs it. Relata refero (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I take the view that this remedy, whether appropriate in the first place, is no longer needed. As noted in the original case, Andries was not an irresponsible editor of Sathya Sai Baba. His position as webmaster of a site critical of Sathya Sai Baba does give a conflict of interest on matters directly relating to that website but it is stretching a point to say that it gives a conflict of interest on the entire subject. Therefore I will be proposing to discharge the remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• My wish in SSBII was to impose a 1RR remedy on Andries. I still think that would be good, in place of the topic ban. My one shading to that view, as of 2008, is that we are moving closer to taking COI as a disqualification from editing. Well, for the purposes of clearer argument, I still hold to the idea that the real disqualification is not being able to edit within the basic content policies. Editing with a COI is a kind of stress-testing of one's ability to do just that. Andries has a score of over 90%, I'd say (I worked through very many of his edits at the time of SSBII, so this is more than impressionistic). The failures were to do with reading WP:RS in a reasonable light. So, I'd support 1RR and a caution not to red-line RS, for a probationary period, the revert restriction being subject to a review after 3 months. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Seeing some opposition to the pending motion, I will offer an alternative motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Original motion

• Remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 is discharged, and in substitution Andries is limited to one content revert on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles in any 24-hour period.

As there are currently 13 active arbitrators, a majority is 7.

Support:

1. Proposed in line with the above brief discussion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
2. With the caveat that Andries is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies, including WP:COI and WP:BLP. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I remain of the opinion than Andries has a substantive conflict of interest regarding Sathya Sai Baba which makes it unseemly for him to edit the articles in question. Kirill 00:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I agree with Kirill. I cannot see how the CoI can be dealt with without an absolute prohibition. James F. (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

Alternative motion

• Remedy 1.1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2, which provides that "Andries is banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages," is amended by striking out the words "or their talk pages." Thus, Andries is now permitted to edit the talkpages of these articles, but not the articles themselves. In doing so, he is cautioned to be mindful of all applicable Wikipedia policies including those concerning conflicts of interest and biographies of living persons.

As there are currently 13 active arbitrators, a majority is 7.

Support:

1. First choice at this time. Any further potential revision of the restrictions could be addressed later (not less than 3 months from now) based upon evaluation of Andries' participation under this revised remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Second preference - better than no change, but I don't regard the conflict of interest as requiring Andries not to edit the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain: