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

• Jehochman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Coren ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Doc glasgow ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lar ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• David Gerard ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mantanmoreland ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samiharris ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notifications

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Statement by Jehochman

We have incipient wheel warring and widespread controversy over sock puppetry blocks and tags that were applied to User:Samiharris and User:Mantanmoreland. This needs to stop immediately. Please state clearly whether sock tags and sock blocks may be applied to these accounts, or not. (I believe that there is a community consensus to do so, as established by the discussion on WP:AN, but some uninvolved administrator can make a final determination.) Some users feel that the arbitration case precludes community action. Please answer "yes" or "no" as to whether the community can act by consensus in this matter. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has asserted that there was a consensus to community ban. Coren had blocked for sock puppetry, based on a strong consensus demonstrated multiple times that there was blockable sock puppetry. It is possible for a user to be blocked but not banned. We really need to unscrew Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Community sanction because until we agree on what these things mean and how they work, we will continue to suffer unnecessary drama. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, this request has nothing to do with a community ban. I agree completely that there is no community ban, due to the very high requirement we have for community banning that gives every administrator veto power. Assuming for the sake of argument that the community decides there has been abusive sock puppetry, can an uninvolved administrator tag and block the accounts, or does the arbitration decision preclude that? I am not asking if this is a wise thing to do. I am asking, whether you prohibit it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, if you are going to cite number of votes, please tell us also how many supported the block. Jehochman ^Talk 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment

Sorry for starting this before the case even closed, but the decision was being overtaken by events, potentially bad events. At least we have prevented wheel warring and been able to discuss this disagreement civilly. Thank you to all for that. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Coren

Indeed, I feel the primary point of contention at this point is whether the ArbCom declined to act on the allegations of sockpuppetry has precluded the community from doing so itself. Some administrators feel that the AC not having decided on a remedy on the allegations of sockpupettry means that they feel they are not warranted, whereas my reading (as the blocking admin) is that the AC left that decision to the community (who has shown very strong and unequivocal consensus). —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to the "vote counters"; I count sufficient unequivocal supports for banning or blocking MM that, were this an RfA, it would pass. Consensus does not mean unanimity. —  Coren  ^(talk) 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

The Committee needs to say point blank if they endorse the ability and right of the community to follow through and make decisions above and beyond, or in place of Committee decisions by consensus. There seems to be a concerted effort on this case by a very, very small minority of long-time users, who seem hell-bent to not allow consensus to stand on this case. Consensus has been established repeatedly now across RFC, RFAR discussions, and AN three times, that Samiharris=Mantanmoreland. Consensus has now formed twice on AN that Mantanmoreland should be blocked--both before he was blocked, and after he was blocked with endorsements. How much more consensus is needed? Notarized statements from all of us, and photocopied drivers licenses mailed to the WMF office in San Fransisco? Does the community have the right to enforce consensus on a three-time caught sockmaster in this case? Lawrence § t/ e 13:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Brad's Wikiconstitutional crisis conundrum

This very exact scenario actually came up last month I predicted this very situation here in discussion on this very case, in the archives. I predicted then basically that this scenario would happen if push came to shove. From Brad's own words last month:

Again, we have not discussed this aspect as a committee at all, but to me individually there is a clear difference between deciding not to take an action as an arbitrator, and deciding to affirmatively overrule that action if taken by the community. I would say that if a community ban were imposed on some user, the ArbCom overruled or reduced the ban, and then the next day it were proposed to reimpose it, then a problematic situation would arise. But that is not this case. Personally, I do think this committee's judgment is sufficiently valuable that if we vote that a particular set of remedies is sufficient, it might be in order to give those remedies a reasonable opportunity to work before reopening the discussion. That may be more a matter of community discretion than a fixed rule. The bottom line is there are no precedents on point that I can think of at this late hour; the Archtransit situation last week, which I mention above, is the closest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We are now inches from this scenario. Is Mantanmoreland with his distinct lack of valuable article edits really so special and important that we will let this level of absurd disruption erupt over him, where this is possibly about to head? Is it that important to not give Bagley and Byrne any satisfaction? Lawrence § t/ e 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As a minor point, I thought I wrote "conundrum" rather than "crisis." Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Lawrence § t/ e 17:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Doc

Wow, talk about beggering the question. I'm actually neutral on the facts/evidence, but whether there is a community consensus is disputed. There is significant objection from some experienced admins. There's a bunch of people that are saying that evidence that didn't compel arbcom is compelling. Well, obviously it isn't, or you'd have been compelled. When the community don't find something blatantly obvious, we send it to arbcom - that's the community's chosen mechanism for dealing with it. And arbcom decided what, if anything, to do. In this case, you decided to do nothing. Whilst that may be regrettable to some (perhaps even to me), that's where it is. We settle incessant debates by sending them to arbcom - that's *final* step in dispute resolution and the alternative to endless argument or wheel warring. Any other way lies chaos, "votes for banning" and lynch-law. In another case, if the mob don't like an arbcom decision, can they take a vote to overturn it? Any community discussion is not the whole community, and has the potential to be influenced by good organisation and loud shouting (it may not be thoughtful, and may not be representative), I contend that the 15 thoughtful people elected after careful consideration, whilst they may be wrong, are far more likely to represent the voice and sanity of the community than a AN thread. Arbitration may not be the final word "for ever and ever amen", but it needs to have some degree of finality if it is really to function as the last part of the deletion process. What's the alternative?

Statement by Theresa Knott

I Pretty much agree with everything Doc says but would like to add that our standards for a community ban has always been that once blocked no admin was willing to unblock. In this case the user was blocked before the ban discussion had finished yet apperently that was merely a block not the ban itself. Then accusations of wheel warring fly once Doc undoes this block. I'm sorry but that isn't on. If someone is willing to undo a block then there is no concensus for the ban! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Korn

The claim that there is consensus for this banning requires a radically new definition of consensus. When multiple respected users oppose an action of this magnitude (and there can be no doubt that banning is a big deal), there is not consensus. We do not do votes for banning. We do not have some numerical system by which we determine who is to be banned, as we do to an extent at RfA. We have a system for sorting out banning in complicated cases: it's called the Arbitration Committee. The block of Mantanmoreland is not justified or permitted by some arbitrary number of people supporting it on ANI. There must be outstanding support. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree entirely with Lar about banning SamiHarris for sock abuse and don't think there is a great deal of opposition to this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as Daveh4h has completely misread my above comment: when there are several established users who advocate against a course of action, then it is inappropriate to find "consensus". It isn't some balance of "these guys have so many Respected Editors, these guys have so many Reasonably Respected Editors, how do they quantitatively balance out?" I did not say that people who want MM banned are not respected users. I quite honestly don't know how you got that impression. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

Sixteen administrators, including two bureaucrats, and another two editors in good standing, have objected on WP:AN to the block, so there is clearly no consensus for it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Jay*Jay

Well, I suspect this is a first for ArbCom - the need for a clarification before the case is even closed. I want to endorse a couple of the comments above - I think the talk pages of the case have made it abundantly clear that some ArbCom members would like to have gone further; others believe that enough has been done and the rest can be cleaned up by the community; others think that sock puppetry has not been established. Without commenting on who believes what, the case pages seem to indicate that the committee's consensus was sock puppetry was likely, but that the community could act independently if it chose. This needs to be clarified, explicitly, and not by individual ArbCom members speaking. It needs a straight vote to endorse or not endorse a statement such as "The decision in Mantanmoreland does not preclude the community from establishing and acting on a consensus that further action should be taken. Nothing in this declaration limits any editor from appealing that action to the committee." If the committee chooses not to make the position in this area crystal clear, they should anticipate a further case in the immediate future, in my opinion.

I would also like to add a couple of observations on the statement from Doc, as several assertions should not be left unchallenged.

• I'm actually neutral on the facts/evidence - this is clearly disputed - see the WP:AN discussion.
• There's a bunch of people that are saying that evidence that didn't compel arbcom is compelling. Well, obviously it isn't, or you'd have been compelled. - compelled to come to a conclusion about the sock puppetry is one thing; compelled to act on that conclusion is quite another. The case pages indicate concerns about being definitive, and concerns to present a decision that all could support - such concerns may compell some not to act on their conclusion as to the evidence of sock puppetry.
• Any community discussion is not the whole community, and has the potential to be influenced by good organisation and loud shouting (it may not be thoughtful, and may not be representative) - this exact argument can be used for tossing out consensus on any decision at AN, ANI, RfA, XfD, DRv, ...
• I contend that the 15 thoughtful people elected after careful consideration, whilst they may be wrong, are far more likely to represent the voice and sanity of the community than a AN thread - but ArbCom have explicitly indicated there were other considerations here. Concern about legal exposure is one that may force them to move away from representing the "voice of the community". Further, ArbCom isn't elected to be a de facto government to decide issues for the community - the notion that, the community can't act once ArbCom is involved, is both offensive to the notion of consensus and dangerous. ArbCom are not the rulers and the community is not the ruled. There needs to be some rapid action to squash this notion.

Jay*Jay ( talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding comments from Morven:

Morven: The Arbitration Committee could not find a consensus to block in this case. Applying the unanimity version of "consensus", maybe not - but I still think a banning vote would pass, and that it wasn't held because of a desire to avoid showing the division within the committee (and particularly who would oppose). Certainly the allegations finding of fact makes it clear that a majority is at least willing to go as far as sock puppetry being likely (and I suspect this is an understatement, given the much stronger views that a couple of committee members have expressed). Then, there are jpgordon's comments on the 'majority' formulation of the finding: "what would it actually mean if I voted against it? That I didn't believe that the majority felt that way? (I'm pretty sure the majority feels that way.) Certainly the plurality feels that way." I think the majority were comfortable declaring "sock", but there was debate over banning and a couple of strong dissents - UC and JPG, to judge from the opposition to the sock puppetry principle - and that this is about preventing disclosure of any more information about the internal division.

Morven: Concern for legal exposure was NOT stated or discussed as a reason by any Arbitrator in public or as far as I know in private. Newyorkbrad, on the talk page of the proposed decision, talking about drafting (emphases added): I also reasoned that it would be highly undesirable to write anything in an "official decision of the Arbitration Committee" that was likely to be used, or misused, in the context of off-wiki disputes. Contrary to some speculation, I personally am not aware of any legal threats against Wikipedia from anyone involved in this matter, and no such threats influenced how I drafted the decision. On the other hand, given the real-world background to the on-wiki dispute, I did not desire through the decision itself to create evidence that could be used someday by any side in some other and very different kind of proceeding.

When the drafter of the decision states, on-wiki, that he considered the use of the decision in a legal case (and that is clearly the allusion here - and it was even clearer the second time he said this), it is clear that potential for litigation did get some consideration - maybe not litigation against the Wikimedia Founddation itself - but legal concerns played a role. Then, there is proposed principle 8: "Arbitration decisions should be read with these limitations in mind and should not be used, or misused ... [in any off-wiki] proceeding". No comment...

Morven: Distrust of the statistical methods used WAS discussed as a reason not to support a block. Only UC has made concerns about statistics clear - and on his talk page, not on the case pages, as far as I recall. There were a few vague comments made, but nothing with anything like the necessary detail to make addressing any concerns possible. I don't understand why questions like this were not put directly, so they could be addressed. Surely the committee members didn't want to avoid providing an opportunity for editors to address their concerns about the quality of the evidence?

Morven: We did not prohibit a block of MM but neither did we endorse it, thus the normal standards for a community ban apply. This matches previous statements from Newyorkbrad, and also FT2: "But the above case may indicate that non-mention is no bar to action if circumstances change, which is the main concern of this thread. (For avoidance of doubt, it's also not a bar to usual decision-making based upon usual norms and standards and such.)" Whilst we can't indefinitely block because the consensus standard is replaced by the absurd unanimity standard, we (the community) appear to be able to use consensus to ban (and thus block) for (say) a year, with a review to be conducted in 11 months to decide upon a renewal. Jay*Jay ( talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

• Everything Doc glasgow says.
• Also, would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered?
• Also, saying "it's wheel-warring to unblock because it isn't the community ban we wanted, it's just an unrighteous block" reeks of rules-lawyering - David Gerard ( talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

There is a consensus for this. It's on the AN thread. Consensus doesn't mean unanimous. That's ridiculous. The vast majority of folks on the AN thread are in agreement that a sockpuppet master (whose been caught multiple times over several years, mind you) deserves to be blocked. This is pure obstructionism. The last refuge of scoundrels is no longer Patriotism, apparently, it's "Take it to ArbCom" instead.

The ArbCom was well aware of the fact that there was going to be a community effort, and specifically said things like "It wouldn't surprise me; given the nature and volume of the evidence, the community doesn't really need our help to make that decision." when asked if they thought a community ban would be affected. Instead of sorting this, we should be considering the wheel-war unblock WITHOUT the vast majority consensusm that existed in that thread, and without even attempting to discuss it with the neutral administrator who applied the block. SirFozzie ( talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(reply to David Gerard) Once again, you show that you think you're above the community. First the IRC page thing (which you got dinged for), and now this. You'd be wise to stop referring to the vast majority of even UNINVOLVED folks on that discussion as a lynch mob, including the neutral administrator who applied the block. SirFozzie ( talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Supplemental statement by SirFozzie

I'd like to thank FT2 for spending a couple hours with me last night, trying to explain why ArbCom did what it did to tapdance around the core issue from the community, which is the link between Samiharris and Mantanmoreland. I've had time to think about it, and while I can't go into the arguments presented, I can say this. I can understand where ArbCom was coming from on this, but I do NOT agree with them.

I'm trying to do a little tapdancing around the issue of my own. But let me say this. ArbCom has chosen to view the off-WP consequences of this as much as they have for a reason. But that means they deprecate the core issue. That Mantnamoreland, nee Gary Weiss, has imported a real life, real world financial controversy onto Wikipedia, and should not be shielded from the consequences of his actions.

We are an encyclopedia. We have rules. If someone wants to come in and break the rules, they risk the consequences if their actions become known. ArbCom is trying to do no harm... but the harm is already done. I fully expect to see this in the press, quickly, and every caricature, every barb thrown at us will have been proven true. I'm disgusted with what this means for the encyclopedia anyone can edit. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

There is obviously no urgency to block the Mantanmoreland account. It is under some of the most stringent socking remedies, with indefinite effect, and the most swingeing enforcement provisions I've ever seen, and is likely to be under permanent scrutiny. There is no justification for an immediate block. The block by Coren was reversed by Doc and discussion continues, which I think it the right thing. The possibility of a community ban, or an alternative community remedy, is being discussed and should be permitted to continue without prejudice. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, from examining the edits of Mantanmoreland carefully, I find the suggestion that he imported a dispute into Wikipedia improbable. He certainly socked, but otherwise his edits put me in mind of a fellow who breaks into your home and doesn't take anything but fixes the microwave and replaces the toilet paper. If he's been pushing some agenda, it's far too subtle to register on my radar. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

not quite on topic Statement by User:Rocksanddirt

The question is of double standards for some users v. others. If we continue to allow the double standards and not take action against them, the project suffers greatly. We enjoy our fantasy of equality here, but it doesn't ring true regarding mm/sh/wb/gw/pb/investors in their shorts. The committee can endorse equality of users or not through a clearly worded clarification or endorsement of one position on the community sanctions discusion. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 15:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Another off topic comment - Mackan79 appears to have been blocked yesterday for sounding like wb? Will we face the double standard on this issue or not? -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 18:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

Most of what I wanted to say has been said. A key point is found what Matthew Brown says below, and the interpretation I make of it is that ArbCom did in fact remand this back to the community. I can find more specific diffs if it really matters. If we hold to the standard that a community ban means that not one admin is willing to overturn it, there is no justification for a community ban of both accounts. If we hold to the standard that a community ban means a consensus to ban, it's arguable... I don't want to shade over into votes for banning to be sure, but the numbers do indicate a lot of support, and also a minority, but fair number of opposes. I'd call it consensus, but perhaps others would not.

I have to say I find it hilarious (in a sad way) that this case got a request for clarification perhaps before it technically closed... (and maybe I jumped the gun starting the discussion by making a proposal, although it seemed a good idea at the time)

I'd also like to see the question of whether a block of Samiharris is a good idea separated out from the Community Ban part. An/Tony put forward that a block of Sami on sock grounds was a good idea, at one point. That seems prudent to me even failing to endorse the rest. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Relata refero

• Why is the block/unblock being discussed here? What do we expect ArbCom to do? It has been made quite clear on the proposed decision page that ArbCom does not intend to stand in the way of any future community action, which has always been the case.
• On the subject of consensus/unblocking/"counting": Will SV, David Gerard, etc., etc. please note that blocking policy currently reads "uninvolved" adminstrators. SV, please feel free to update your figures till they comply with policy. DocG, please feel free to alter your statement till it complies with policy.
• Morven, I note you said "consensus to block". I didn't know ArbCom was working on internal consensus these days, rather than the more normal majority voting. It certainly explains the wording of PFoF 2.1.
• David: "being exonerated by the arbcom" - did not happen in this case; "if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered" - no, nobody ever was safe from that. Which is why people worried about private mailing lists and Other Controversial Locations for Off-Wiki Co-ordination.
• Everyone please take a moment to go over their statements and check that they aren't talking about "ban" when they mean "indefblock". This includes Morven.
• I'd rather that DocG not have stated a weak rationale when unblocking against (uninvolved) consensus, and even more that that weak rationale not be based on inaccurate facts. Not that that is relevant, and now Morven has pointed out that DocG was wrong in his assumptions.
• Tony: your "examination" has been, at best, a little careless. This has been pointed out already. Note to self: resist the urge to make crack about "too subtle for me", resist it, resist it :)
• Coren has pointed out that he was willing to unblock in the normal way if contacted, but he wasn't. If you want to talk about irregularity and consensus like a lot of policy-wonks, include that bit. Relata refero ( talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Neil

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris.

• Clear:
  • 31 firmly in favour of ban (Lar, Lawrence Cohen, SirFozzie, Jehochman, Naerii, Durova, Alanyst, Amerique, 82.19.1.139, R. Baley, Wizardman, WAS 4.250, Rocksanddirt, Krimpet, Mackan79, GRBerry, JoshuaZ, Sceptre, Hmwith, Noroton, Daveh4h, Achromatic, LessHeard vanU, MPerel, Crotalus horridus, Neil, Eleland, Pascal Tesson, Bigtimepeace, Cla68, Viridae)
  • 12 against (Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, Sam Korn, Theresa Knott, David Gerard, Doc Glasgow, JzG, IronDuke, AGK, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Wjscribe, Addhoc)
• Others (7):
  • 1 comment that block may not solve issue (Kingturtle)
  • 2 prefer topic ban (Random832, MastCell)
  • 1 "wait and see" (Carcharoth)

Unfortunately, it's a flimsy consensus to indefinitely ban someone, even Mantanmoreland. Lar probably initiated the discussion too soon, Coren probably acted too soon in blocking, Doc Glasgow unblocking without discussion with Coren while warning that anyone who dared overturn him would be wheel-warring (simultaneously flouting policy with one hand while quoting it with the other) didn't help in calming things down. Neıl ☎ 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this take into account the people that endorsed after Coren blocked? Lawrence § t/ e 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note for avoidance of doubt - Coren and Doc G have apparently now spoken completely amicably on this, and all's sorted out there, for anyone who wondered. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by daveh4h

• Theresa knott says: I Pretty much agree with everything Doc says but would like to add that our standards for a community ban has always been that once blocked no admin was willing to unblock. That may be true. But I would guess, or hope, that the admin unblocking would have to attempt to get consensus for the unblock, as did the blocker.
• Sam Korn says: When multiple respected users oppose an action of this magnitude (and there can be no doubt that banning is a big deal), there is not consensus Is that your hook now? People that are supporting a ban of MM aren't "respected" enough? Perhaps you should file an arbcom to rid the site of users that are not respected enough, then the community would be ran exactly to your liking!
• Sam Korn says: We have a system for sorting out banning in complicated cases: it's called the Arbitration Committee. Yes, and it failed to act! You would know more about why than I, since you have access to the arbcom mailing list, but not for a minute do I believe that you do not see the huge pile of shit that the arbcom dumped into the community's lap. You realize that.
• SlimVirgin says: Sixteen administrators, including two bureaucrats, and another two editors in good standing, have objected on WP:AN to the block, so there is clearly no consensus for it. This is an appeal to authority. Or is this a way of saying that the majority of people asking for a block are unimportant, since they do not have those permissions on a website? This argument carries zero weight with me, perhaps I am arrogant.
• David Gerard says: Also, would anyone be safe even being exonerated by the arbcom if enough of a lynch mob could be gathered? As long as the arbcom decision does not radically go against community consensus, as it did here, I think they'll be ok. This is an unusual case and one that has been left to fester for two years. You know that this is a complex and unusual case; however, if you do not believe this is a complex case, then I get a better feel of where you are coming from with your comments. Please let us know if you think this is a simple case.

More on appeals to authority (respected users, admins, crats): How many different levels of consensus have to be acheived, now? Must we get a consensus among stewards to issue a block/ban now, too? Lar is one, maybe he can speak for steward consensus! Since two bureaucrats stating that they did not support a block/ban is carrying weight, then maybe my statement should read something like: Lar is a steward. Case closed. I'd at least like to pretend I'm a little bit intellectual honest, though. It is overall community consensus that matters. Remember, it was respected admins that protected MM and his socking in the first place. The community followed their judgment because we had no reason not to. They are respected users! This time we have an abundance of reason to not follow the judgment of certain respected users. There is no need to apply more weight to someone's opinion simply because they have an extra permission on a website--That's counter to the ideals that are set forth in this community. That a few respected users with a history of protecting MM are opposed to a ban of MM should not be surprising; moreover, it should not carry more weight than any other opinion--in fact, quite the contrary.

Dave, you're reading more into one comment above, than I think Sam intended. When he says for example "multiple respected users" he's more likely to be meaning "people with reputations for judgement" as opposed to "those with status". (Inevitably some of those with good judgement will also have been given additional trust by the community too.) Rewrite the words you quote: "A community ban is not a vote. When it is opposed by a significant number of users in good standing, then there is de facto doubt if it meets our norm for a community ban." FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Random832

Since the discussion did not take the form of an "up/down" vote, it is unclear how many users are on each 'side', and various numbers are being advanced. Would those who think the numbers are relevant please enumerate which users you are interpreting as support or oppose, with diffs for each? I would like to also take this opportunity to explicitly state that my own remark was intended as neutral, and I am concerned that it may be being counted as an oppose. (EDIT: Based on Neil's analysis, I gather that I am indeed being counted among the "sixteen") — Random832 16:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that there should also be some analysis of who opposed on solely process grounds, as compared to who opposed because they're not convinced of the evidence or because they don't think that MM's actions, even when they agree on their nature, were bannable. If no-one else does this analysis I am willing to do it tomorrow. — Random832 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Amerique

I've got an idea. Instead of arguing over whether to block MM or not, why not edit WP:SOCK and WP:COI policies to allow sockpuppeting in pursuit of COI, as long as someone has a good reason for it, like say "off-site harassment," as this is the position the committee effectively stands for? Works for me, if the committee does not care that this guy double voted in the last ArbCom election nor that he socked to create a false appearance of consensus in the BADSITES case, why should any of us care about this anywhere else in the encyclopedia? Clearly, at this point, policy is way out of line with permissible practice as determined by the committee. Amerique ^dialectics 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You might benefit from reading and considering, rather than assuming a misrepresention of others' words and views this way. If you had read statements, you will find indications why this stance is taken... including assessment of norms for handling alleged (and even confirmed) abusive puppetry that suggest your concept of sock-issue handling is not in fact on track. Your points are each about COI/puppetry, but you haven't considered that our norm on these is much more usually that where possible and positive contributions may be made in other areas, we deal with the potentially abusive conduct going forward, and then let the editor edit if they wish subject to any needed restrictions related to the area of dispute, if there is a chance their other edits may yet be constructive. Your contention that somehow people "did not care", stated in a parodying superficial manner that WP:POINT calls "ineffective" and "designed to provoke", is grossly distorting of this, and an example of the kind of "more heat than light" so often referred to in this case as a major problem. Please don't in future. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

For the record, my position was not one of support or oppose, other than to say that we should wait and see what happened (ie. give the arbcom remedies a chance). I would not have stood in the way of a community ban if that has been the result. I was also highly critical of the process and timescale, as well as one of Coren's blocking rationales.

• The second blocking rationale - "the very magnitude of the drama above is the perfect illustration on how immensely and irremediably disruptive this editor has been, and how much strife he has caused" (as stated by User:Coren) - I strongly disagree with this. The day that we start to block merely because the community is having one of its periodic dramafests is the day that the community is finished as a coherent entity that can be respected and its decisions seen to have any worth outside that of mob rule. In any large community, there will always be disagreement and differences of opinion. That should not result in a general principle that 'drama in the community' = 'disruption by the editor being discussed'. That veers dangerously close to the often unprovable accusation of trolling. Stick to the facts and discuss those and come up with a process to reduce the drama and allow the community to express itself in a calm manner.
• Process - Community ban discussions at AN are, at present, chaotic and poorly structured affairs. Please visit Wikipedia talk:Community sanction for discussion on how such community ban discussions could be better handled. For now, I'll repeat what I've said before:

  "I think the process of community banning could be improved a lot: (1) Clear start and end points and no closing early; (2) People declaring their interest and article and/or editor involvement (or uninvolvement) up front (ie. have they been involved with the editor before and how - anyone failing to declare this gets their comment discounted); (3) Clear presentation of the latest evidence and links to previous evidence; (4) Giving the editor in question a chance to defend themselves; (5) Such discussions not being a response to the "latest incident", and hence not decided in the "heat of the moment"."

  Things like "saying what alternatives are available and why they wouldn't work" are other possibilities. RfC is very structured. RfArb is very structured. Is there any reason why community ban discussions need to be so dramatic and ad-hoc?
• Timescale - Compare the timescale of the three processes people have cited so far. The RfC opened at 16:52, 12 February 2008 and the last edit to date (which was also still part of the discussion there) has been 03:43, 16 February 2008. That is over four days of discussion. The RfArb opened at 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) and will effectively close at 11:49, 13 March 2008. That is nearly a full month of discussion. This thread was opened by Lar at 17:13, 12 March 2008, and Coren blocked at 03:05, 13 March 2008 (I know, a block not a ban, but still). That is just under 10 hours of discussion before the block was placed (though discussion appears to be ongoing). I think allowing only 10 hours for the discussion, however long or heated or drama-filled, is a travesty of process.

Apologies for importing great chunks from the AN thread, but that pretty much sums up what I have to say on this matter. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Cool Hand Luke

It's suggested that ArbCom "exonerated" these users, but they did nothing of the sort. This confusion is precisely why I asked for an explicit finding that the community is free to decide. If the Committee has any interest in quelling the drama, they would take this opportunity to decide this once and for all. I will probably respect any decision they render.

Remember, ArbCom is the path of least drama. And if you actually do "exonerate" them, that's fine. It lets users make an informed decision about whether they want to be part of this project.

Otherwise, ArbCom should quickly reaffirm that this case is in the community's hands. Cool Hand Luke 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tony claims that David Gerard only hypothetically said that ArbCom might exonerate people in the future. If that's the case, then I wonder why Gerard would want to bring it up in a case where ArbCom did not exonerate anyone. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Whether or not the idea of running a community ban discussion was endorsed by the entire Committee, it was suggested by members of the Committee on a proposed decision talk page. Those individuals offered the Archtransit precedent and interested editors discussed the matter with them there. Lar's proposed ban was not a farfetched interpretation of some passing comment. In fact, no member of the Committee objected to the idea until a ban discussion was already underway.

This was not well done. It raises doubts about how closely the Committee members read arbitration talk pages. Whether or not the Committee alters any part of its decision here, the ban discussion also demonstrates that the consensus of the Committee is seriously out of step with the views of the community. This is not the only recent occasion when the Committee's own actions revealed such a discordance. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, the Committee moved to voting twelve hours after the case opened and then postponed its decision for a month to run a user conduct RFC on an administrator. Although the RFC was run on the most prejudicial of terms--with an active desysopping proposal moving toward approval--the community provided more than enough support for the sysop in question to reinstate him immediately at RFA. The only effect that input had upon the case outcome was that the Committee retained him under its own control when it went ahead and desysopped him anyway. Rather than submit to that, he exercised his right to vanish...and the whole case had been undertaken for the sake of an account that had less than 50 edits. This was the worst of several recent cases that were not conducted well.

Being an arbitrator means making tough decisions that displease people. That's the nature of the beast and the Committee is entrusted with considerable powers and autonomy so that its members can act without fear of retaliation. Yet the Committee has been inviting demonstrations of community opinion that show just how unpopular its own choices are. Today an editor in good standing invited me to review a draft RFC on the arbitration committee. To see that idea seriously entertained should give pause. Durova ^Charge! 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

I would request that clarification is given to the wording of WP:BAN#Decision to ban - Pt.1 as invoked by both David Gerard and Doc glasgow in (potential) unblocking (putting aside that Coren blocked with a rationale that did not invoke community ban criteria) in that the wording "propose an unblock" specifies an intent and not the action, and that by unblocking that a violation of WP:WHEEL may have occurred - albeit in good faith. This may not be the correct venue, but also clarification that in the matter of a community ban being in place that the unblock proposal itself requires consensus before being enacted may be useful; even as part of notes and comments rather than any decision on the other matters. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

re Consensus; as mentioned, it is not a vote count - it is a determination as to which arguments carry the most weight and best reflect policy and practice. Many of the opposers cite the apparent lack of agreement at ArbCom to impose a block/ban as reason enough for the community not to "usurp" that decision. Plus, in the absence of good precedent as well as reference to policy/guideline it seems that those opposed to a ban can only refer to the experience of those so inclined to oppose. I have yet to be convinced that consensus has not been reached, and that the opposes are based either in a misunderstanding of ArbCom's position regarding a block/ban or simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT couched in a spurious appeal to authority. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 10:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recused. —  Coren  ^(talk) 13:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some threaded discussion on this has been moved to the talk page. -- Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

As I see it:

1. The Arbitration Committee could not find a consensus to block in this case.
2. The reasons were varied.
3. Concern for legal exposure was NOT stated or discussed as a reason by any Arbitrator in public or as far as I know in private
4. Distrust of the statistical methods used WAS discussed as a reason not to support a block
5. We did not prohibit a block of MM but neither did we endorse it, thus the normal standards for a community ban apply
6. The convention is that a community ban does not hold if there is sufficient dissent that a single administrator is willing to perform an unblock, which has occurred.
7. Claims that the block had consensus don't hold water when approx. a dozen admins have opposed it.

(I may add more to this later, but that's my current opinions.) Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 15:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Long post
First thoughts

This was always going to be a controversial case. There were always going to be people uncontent, and here's what some forget: dispute handling is not a decision process based on popularity alone. If it were, then we could all have a happy-happy vote and be done. No. Arbcom exists in large part, because there are sometimes voices that will not listen to a more calm perspective, and believe only 1/ nuking or 2/ ignoring "the problem as they see it", solves it. There are many voices saying "ban these users" - that's a given. With deep respect, I have to put it simply. A few users' posts have at times come across somewhat as a demand not only to ban the user/s concerned, but equally, to damn or accuse anyone who dares thinks otherwise.

No. That is not how we do it here. From where a number of others see this, a number of users are risking presenting themselves as hot headed and over reactive in this, and not considering (or wishing to consider) the change of circumstances that a ruling like this creates. They are treating this almost as if we were back in 2006/07 and no arb case had been held. They would benefit from slowing down. Traditionally and factually, Arbcom is de facto the end of the line for problematic editing from editors brought to its attention. (Too much attention, too much light, end of line for most problems.) In fact, stridency to the point of disruption, as some have done, is precisely what has made the entire case so difficult in the past. More than one person has said that those shouting were their own worst enemies. They were, in my view, 100% right in that assessment.

We have never run Wikipedia by emotionally drive heat. This was a block to obtain good conduct in the presence of strong AN debate, although some sought to build it into a ban. However both of these conflicted with an incipient Arbitration view. Had we felt a ban was needed, we are more than able to rule one, and as a Committee, we do so regularly. In this case, complete prevention was likely achievable by lesser means, and it is a norm of Wikipedia dispute resolution and has been for years not to use more force than necessary to obtain good conduct.

The block was clearly by an uninvolved admin in good faith trying to best judge a heated area that had enveloped the whole community, and which absent an Arbitration case would have probably been useful. The view backing a block, or a conversion to a ban, was communally supported by a significant number, but also contested by a significant number of well respected users, and lesser measures were already in place to deal with the issue requiring an indef block; hence Doc G's unblock was also done correctly. I note in this context, that we only recently (CSN) had an MFD to kill off the growing edge of "vote driven bans" as a direction we did not want to go in.

In this case, a number of users who are 1/ voted by the community, and are 2/ trusted to examine the most complex cases and 3/ to examine past cases where significant information was considered, spent a lot of time, and concluded effectively just the same day as to appropriate measures. Unfortunately a number of people looked to Arbitration not for "the" verdict, but for "their" verdict. That is never an excuse. In every Arbitration case, there will be some who heatedly, angrily, confusedly, indignantly, feel it must have gone their way, and wax heated when it does not give them everything they hoped for.

The case went to Arbitration, a lot of people don't like the decision or see it as a lack of firm statement. But if dispute resolution is to work, people need to learn to live with decisions they don't like, including that sometimes, the better question is not "who is wrong" so much as "what protection is needed".

I have significant respect for the people shouting, as individuals, and for their concerns. SirFozzie and I have spoken on more than a few occasions, with never a dispute, and have done so last night and today. But this anger has to end. The aim of arbitration is to address the issue, and believed or not, the issue is actually addressed. None of the parties or their supporters or opponents is going to get a golden medal of who was right, who was wrong; we can all drop it and get back to content and normal stuff. The articles warred over will be watched by many, as will the parties, and any suspect new editors.

Those who clamored endlessly here, are not, as they might imagine, heroes or wiki-vigilantes. They actually got in the way and disrupted, and in my own opinion, over reacted badly. They showed a gross misunderstanding of the very basics. We are an encyclopedia... and we do not act as was done.

Further to the point, in most cases where puppetry is alleged, the remedy is traditionally to remove the ability to engage in concerning behavior, and then leave the user with the chance to show their intentions. This has been the case in numerous instances where socking was effectively considered proven, not merely alleged. Such users routinely have had as recourse, their actions restricted -- and then been allowed to edit as normal to a high standard if they choose. A ban is not the norm, unless there is a lot more than just sockpuppetry at issue. Even double (or more) !voting has been allowed to fall into the past in other cases. If the user is a sysop, the adminship is usually revoked, is the other result. Beyond that, we let them show how they will act subsequently. If it's unrepentant, then the end of the line is inevitable. But we let them choose to return to the community in good faith, or show their intentions by editing. Their choice after arbitration.

Specific comments

1. Blocks and bans exist mostly to protect the project going forward. (Exception: It is rare that a ban is placed for gross breach of trust, and when this has been done it is usually an arbcom action and/or very high level of consensus.) In this case it is my view that recent case decisions mean there is little risk to protect the project against.
2. The community can and does act on its own. Witness Archtransit. However in that case it was made clear that the admin tools were being withdrawn, but that no further remedy was proposed to deal with the puppetry. In this matter however the driving force is heat, not light. Not one person has shown that there is a real risk of editing abuse going forward, and a cold hard look at the remedies, niche focus of the disputants, and communal awareness of the matter, will show that indeed, there probably is not. Further, when the senior dispute resolution panel has decided certain measures are likely to be sufficient, it is inappropriate for even established users to act in a way that does not respect that.
3. Samiharris - Samiharris has been handled exactly as any other party who ceases editing before the case on what appears to be a permanent basis. We often address them if/when they return to edit, and in fact have done so in cases far more egregious than this. We also at times block, and at times do not block, accounts where puppetry is possible/has some evidence/suggestive. Both are communal norms, so I am not going to give any view on this, except, ensure what is done is appropriate and fairly considered. (As an aside, note that a block would have negligible effect: SH's sole edits were via a proxy, which is independently blocked anyway I hope. But then again we know the areas of contention anyhow.)
4. Mantanmoreland - Both block and unblock were within communal norms; Coren confirms the block was to achieve good conduct of a communally suspected repeat puppeteer (a proper purpose) and would have been removed once assurances on future conduct were received. But in this case, specific remedies had already been provided for any untoward future conduct (and the block was also disputed by other users), making the need for this a bit redundant.
5. Tagging is probably unnecessary, and possibly provocative. Anyone who needs to know, knows already. There can be little doubt of that. A simple tag on SH's page "this is a suspected sock of..." might give vindication and rewarding feelings to some, but is actually pretty pointless really at this time. Feel free to edit war over it if needed. Usual sanctions probably apply.
6. I note that the blocks, and unblocks, were both done by relatively uninvolved admins. I am profoundly glad that this norm was followed, note the two admins concerned are both amicable to each other, and I glad that if any admins were to have acted, they were relatively uninvolved ones. Thank you to those who were involved, but held back. You did a good job there.
7. We don't run Wikipedia and especially, its sanction mechanisms, based on "I think that user is bad". We run it based on users' assessment of their disruption to the project going forward. We don't whip up heated emotional dramas around things, and I urge those who are persistently complicit in doing so, to consider desisting ("more light than heat"). The same names often keep coming up in this context.

Apologies for the tone. The user comments by some are genuine and emotive -- but as I see it, a number of views are also misdirected and misconceived. That needs saying and I lack the certainty that saying it tactfully will be heard. If anyone feels I have spoken wrongly of them though, please contact me, and I'll be glad to discuss. Specific questions raised I'll answer on the talk page in a bit.

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(And note, there are some differences in perception between Arbitrators when it comes to the question of a site ban. Arbitrators, including myself, often speak individually as well as "as a committee" and are not shy to state personal views if they differ. Hence users will see different "takes" on this. That said, what we did agree on was that a topic ban was appropriate in our decision, but a site ban was -at this time anyhow - not.) FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try to say little, because there is so much that could be said. We have conflicting precedents regarding the threshold for community bans, as well as for how often administrators may undo one another's actions. The weight of the discussion on WP:AN suggests that a solid majority of participants support an indefinite block on both the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts, but that there is enough dissension that the ordinary standards for a community ban have not been satisfied. Normally, administrators should not unblock against consensus, but it can be argued that unblocking to reflect dissent from a community ban is appropriate—at which point, if others support a ban, the matter can generally be brought before the Arbitration Committee—but here the case has already been here, and produced a decision regarded by some as insufficient, leading to the AN discussion in the first place. As the principal drafter of the nuanced decision that is now being found inadequate by many, I obviously have mixed feelings about every aspect of the matter: I thought the proposed decision was a good one, and was strengthened by remedies added more recently, and frankly I think that in writing decisions I generally know what I am doing and am entitled to a presumption to that effect, and I also would not want to devalue the deliberative process of this committee—but I am not a tribune, and I as a new editor once myself got a plurality of arbitrators to vote to reverse a remedy when I found it to be unjust, and I have no interest in shoving my personal opinions, even when joined by up to 14 colleagues, down an unwilling community's throat; and yet, the community speaks here not with one but with a multitude of voices; through a majority, but not with unanimity, nor even near-unanimity. We have here a more than a bit of a wikiconstitutional conundrum, which bids fair to rise above the level of attention to which the subject of the case should be entitled, and one that should be approached slowly and cautiously by all concerned to minimize the destructive impact of the tensions that have already occurred. While I and my colleagues and all of us ponder how it would be best to proceed, I would refer all concerned to Mantanmoreland's comments on his user talk page today, for whatever they might be worth, and I would urge him, if he has any additional information or statement to offer regarding any aspect of this matter, to post it to his talkpage without any delay. And I see that as usual I have failed in my vow to say little. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Initiated by Avruch ^T at 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Avruch

I would ask the Committee to again reconsider the remedies of the Everyking3 case, including its recently passed motion responding to Everyking's appeal. I've written my concerns to the Committee mailing list, but the message is being held for moderator approval. The two motions considered by the Committee upon revisiting the remedies in this case both enjoyed the support of a majority of the Committee but are clearly contradictory.

Motion 1 eliminates all but one remedy and implies approval of the appeal, while Motion 2 leaves two remedies intact and applies an additional, unconsidered remedy that limits the ability of the subject of this case to file additional appeals and implicitly disapproves of the appeal as filed. The apparent contradiction and the fact that the outcome does not appear to take the requested outside views into account calls into question whether the Committee fully considered the elements of this case before Motion 2 was found to have passed.

With respect, Avruch ^T 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional, responding to Arbitrators comments so far

Comments so far have focused exclusively on the procedural issue of the motions and the order of passage. I don't disagree that this is partly the source of the confusion - observers not walking through the history to see the votes in progress will see that both motions pass, but only motion 2 is considered in effect. Still, if motion 1 passed second and represents a significant deviation from motion 2, the import of that should be considered.

Even so, the substantive issue appears to be more important to me - aside from which motion should have effect based on Committee procedure, it is clear regardless that both motions had a majority support of the same Committee and largely the same members and yet they clearly contradict eachother in meaning. Why would the same members support in one moment a continuation of only one remedy and a lifting of all other sanctions and in another moment support continuing two remedies and adding a third? There doesn't appear to be evidence indicating an abuse of the appeal process by Everyking, so what is the unenumerated justification for limiting his ability to appeal? Connections have been drawn to the US Supreme Court, where summary judgments without greater explanation are not uncommon - I think it would be a mistake for the Committee to adopt this habit, because the community of which the Committee is a part requires greater clarity.

Respectfully, Avruch ^T 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow up

It looks like three participating Arbitrators have expressed a willingness to revote the items of the motions separately, and three have not. What is the next step on this before it gets archived as stale? Avruch ^T 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no Arbitrators have commented in more than two weeks on this section, is it reasonable to assume that no action will be taken and it ought to be archived/proceed to some other step? Avruch ^T 02:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved User Jay*Jay

I do not recall ever having edited with Everyking and so can make no comment on his actions or the ArbCom sanctions. However, I am greatly concerned by the way the appeal has been handled and want to strongly endorse Avruch's request for a reconsideration. My concern is two-fold. Firstly, as Avruch has noted and the related AN discussion shows, the imposition of a new restriction on making an appeal appears punitive. The philosophy underling sanctions (bans, blocks, etc) is supposed to be to protect the encyclopedia and to prevent disruption. I fail to see how this restriction pursues either aim, as no suggestion of disruption has been made, and the ArbCom believed the appeal was sufficiently warranted to debate and pass two separate ammednment motions, both of which reduce the sanctions on Everyking. The situation is akin to a court finding for the plaintiff and then ordering that the plaintiff pay costs for both parties. It is, frankly, bizarre.

My second concern relates to the contradiction which has also been noted elsewhere. This diff includes the entire appeal case immediately prior to it being archived. I suggest that the summary of the motion presented on the case page and the relating modification is in error, for the following reasons:

1. Motions require a majority of 8 to pass, and motion 1 passes 8-2 with 1 abstention - there is no requirement, as I understand it, for a net vote of 8, merely a simple majority.
2. Motion 2 is recorded as passing 11-1. However, this count is only correct if Newyorkbrad's vote is taken as an 'oppose'. His vote actually stated that it "should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support" - showing that the passing of motion 1 was recognised.
3. Four ArbCom members (Newyorkbrad, FT2, Paul August, and Sam Blacketer) expressly noted a preference for motion 1 over motion 2. Although only Newyorkbrad expressly noted that such a preference means opposition of motion 2 if motion 1 passes, a reasonable interpretation (in light of motion 1's passing) would be that motion 2 actually has 8 supports and 4 neutral/oppose votes.

Possible resolutions: There are several ways in which this contradiction can be resolved. They include:

• Passing only motion 1 as motion 2 has more opposition than does motion 1 - problematic, as it remains the case that both should pass.
• Asking Deskana, who expressly states that "either is fine", to form a preference, thus supporting only one motion and being neutral or opposing the other - thereby resolving which motion passes.
• Ask for reconsideration by some or all of Kirill, FloNight, and Blnguyen, each of whom also supported both motions, to express a preference for a single motion and neutrality or opposition towards the other - which would also resolve which motion passes.
• I do not see any additional clarity is gained by reconsideration by any of the four remaining ArbCom members who voted ( UnivitedCompany, Charles Matthews, bainer, and jpgordon), as each has indicated a clear preference (either in comment or by vote) for motion 2 over motion 1. However, there were (at the time of the appeal) three other active ArbCom members who have noted voted and who could. I am not sure that this would be helpful, as no vote by them could alter the fact that both motions received the support needed to pass.

I strongly believe that the appeal should be reopened, as the present outcome is not only unjust and inequitable (in adding a new appeal restriction), but also seriously flawed by internal contradiction. Two conflicting motions should not ever be passed, and the need for clarity for the community strongly indicates that ArbCom should re-open the appeal to resolve the ambiguity as a matter of urgency. The are obviously other possible appraoches to providing clarity that the Committee could adopt - simply holding a fresh vote on each motion would be one, provided members recognised that supporting both motions is unsatisfactory if suitabke caveats are not noted. I have no stake in what solution is adopted, although believe that the appeal restriction appears punitive and unjustified; however, I implore the Committee members to act to provide clarity. Jay*Jay ( talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I note that there has also been discussion here on Thatcher's talk page about the closure and the interpretation of two passing motions. That discussion further serves to highlight the unsatisfactory and subjective approach applied in situations such as this. I have absolutely no doubt that Thatcher acted in good faith in trying to resolve the situation, but it is impossible to escape the conclusion that ArbCom passed two contradictory motions. Leaving the interpretation of that action to the discretion of a single Clerk - who in this case chose to disregard a passed motion - is unacceptable. Wjbscribe's analysis below shows that the opposite result can be obtained by another reasonable interpretation of passing two motions - actually applying both, in either sequence. The fault here lies squarely with ArbCom, as it was their actions that have created the ambiguity. It is up to ArbCom to resolve this problem. I have proposed several possible approaches. Wjbscribe provides another, in that ArbCom could simply affirm that both motions passed and that both must be applied. Newyorkbrad provides another, in that individual votes could be held on each individual modification. Please, re-open the appeal, and act to fix the problem that you have created. It is reasonable to leave to admin discretion and community interpretation what enforcement might be required for any breach of an ArbCom-imposed sanction, but it is not reasonable to require discretion of a Clerk or anyone else be used in determination of what are those sanctions. ArbCom acts careful to avoid such ambiguity by passing only single and unambiguous sanctions in its cases, and has erred in not acting carefully with respect to the motions in the appeal. Rectifying this error is necessary and urgent, as the present ambiguity is unacceptable. Jay*Jay ( talk) 05:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note on Comment from Thatcher: The problem is concisely illustrated when Thatcher sighes that the two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. The problem, of course, is that they did both pass. The correctness or otherwise of any analysis of conditional votes is irrelevant. Analysis should never be required to interpret whether a binding decision was made, and such analysis cannot alter the unarguable fact that both motions did pass. The fact that the present analysis results in the application of a new restriction on Everyking simply makes the situation worse. The origin of the ambiguity lies in ArbCom passing contradictory motions, and only ArbCom can address the situation. Jay*Jay ( talk) 08:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

I emailed the following analysis to ArbCom yesterday:

My understanding of the process is as follows: 8 Arbitrators is a majority. Proposals supported by 8 or more Arbitrators pass.

In this case, two motions were supported by 8 or more Arbitrators, therefore logically both must pass. A majority of Arbitrators have supported lifting the following sanctions against Everyking through their support of motion #1:

1. Remedy 5 of EK
2. The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3

It does not seem to matter which motion passed first. If motion #1 passed first, these remedies no longer existed to be "continued" by motion #2. If motion #2 passed first, these remedies were then terminated by the passing of motion #1. The latter scenario seems to have occured here as motion #2 reached a majority first. Motion #1 should not have been ignored simply because motion #2 passed as it too enjoyed a majority. The fact that one motion enjoyed more support than the other does not seem relevant as the criteria for passage is reaching a majority, not the greatest majority. Looked at another way, if motion #1 were voted on now and reached the same level, it would clearly take effect.

In this case, it seems to me that both motions have passed and come into effect by result of being supported by 8 Arbitrators. The only remedy Everyking therefore remains subject to is: Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer). And he is (through motion #2) restricted from appealing that remedy more than once a year.

Therefore I believe a further post to AN is required informing the community of the effects of motion #1 passing (that two of the sanctions continued by motion #2 are now terminated), and that Everyking should be notified that the sanctions against him are further reduced by the success of that motion. The present result means that although Everyking gained the support of a majority of the full Committee for lifting those 2 sanctions, he remains subject to them. I do not believe this to be a fair result. WjB scribe 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by David Mestel

In my view, the most significant problem here resulted from the fact that the motions were listed as "1" and "2", rather than "1" and "1.1", as is the norm where there are multiple alternative proposals (see, for example, here), and the correct action would have been to renumber them accordingly; perhaps it would be a good idea for the committee to make clear that it is happy for clerks to do this when proposals are clearly incompatible (such as these proposals in Ehud Lesar), subject obviously to reversion if arbitrators disagree. Notwithstanding this, there is considerable ambiguity as to how alternative proposals should be resolved, and I would respectfully commend to the committee my proposals here, subject to rewriting for clarity. I understand and accept Newyorkbrad's point that they are rather complex, but in my submission this should not be too much of a problem, since they are to be applied by clerks who presumably have studied and understood them, and any editors who object to or are puzzled by a result are also likely to have sufficient motivation also to read and understand them, or, alternatively, to ask for explanation. In any event, it is clearly more transparent to have a concrete though somewhat complex set of written procedures, rather than to rely on unwritten practice and individual judgement.

In these particular circumstances, it is my view that, in the absence of concrete guidelines, Thatcher's judgement of arbitrators' preference was correct (although it might perhaps have been preferable to hold off on closing and seek further guidance), and, if the committee shares this view, it is therefore not necessary to re-open the appeal, and the best course of action would be to adopt a summary motion confirming motion 2 in the appeal, or, in the case of the contrary view, one disapproving the outcome and re-opening the appeal. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from AGK

Whilst I rarely make comment on matters in cases out with those I am directly involved in, I feel compelled to make public my feelings on this matter. The underlying problems in this case are somewhat simple, and easily remediable:

• Confusion exists over what the Committee's consensus on this matter is
• Editors involved in the case, as well as uninvolved users, are of the opinion that the decision that has been posted differs from the consensus of the Committee as a whole, as measured as the vote held on the matter

Respectively, these issues can be addressed very simply:

• The Committee as a whole (rather than individual arbitrators) clarify its intended decision in this matter,
• If the intended decision differs from that which has recently been implemented, then the matter be re-opened and consensus re-gauged through the medium of a vote.

My view on whether re-opening the matter for Committee consideration remains unspecified, as I cannot say for certain what the Committee's consensus is, hence my call for a statement from it as a whole on the matter. I reiterate: a statement representing the consensus of the Arbitrators, and released on behalf of the Committee as a whole is necessary, both to clarify the circumstances once-and-for-all, and to provide a basis by which the decision of whether to reopen (and hence re-consider) the matter can be made. AGK ( contact) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Zocky

Clerks already write up a summary of each case and post it to the parties' pages. Maybe we could avoid these situations if they wrote the summary before closing the case, so that they have a chance to notice inconsistencies and ask arbitrators for additional information? Zocky | picture popups 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In full-fledged cases, a clerk or an arbitrator prepares an "implementation note" at the bottom of the proposed decision page before the motion to close is completed, which allows any ambiguities or anomolies to be identified and addressed and serves exactly the purpose you suggest. That practice has not been used in the "requests for clarifications/motions in closed cases" section where the procedure and format is generally much simpler, but I agree that is a useful suggestion for more complicated situations like this one. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

The two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. Note that full cases have a motion to close phase with implementation notes, this gives the Arbitrators a chance to adjust their votes so that their intentions are correctly carried out. Open motions do not have separate votes to close and are usually enacted 24 hours after a majority is apparent. The usual method of analyzing conditional votes was applied. Several other approaches are discussed on my talk page. Thatcher 06:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• This request will be removed and archived in 24 hours unless new proposals are offered for voting. Thatcher 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that if the arbitrators wanted this closed, they would have signalled that by now. Instead it appears we are waiting on the next phase to begin, and as a clerk I don't see how you can issue an ultimatum to the arbitrators that they do something at a certain time. Everyking ( talk) 04:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed the Arbitrators twice about this request. I will not presume to guess why this request is stale, and has attracted no comment or proposals for voting in the last 18 days, but stale it is, and 10 days is the usual standard for archiving. Thatcher 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NYB has said that he intends to propose new motions. Perhaps he has changed his mind, but surely we can at least give him long enough to tell us what he is (or isn't) going to do. Everyking ( talk) 06:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do intend to offer new motions in this matter. I have some concerns about the timing of doing so, however, which I will address with Everyking in a response to a note he left on my talkpage. In the meantime, the Clerk has acted properly by suggesting that a temporarily stalled discussion be moved off the main RfAr page, and can go ahead so far as I am concerned. Please note that an arbitrator, for good cause, may make a motion to reopen or modify the decision in any closed case at any time, and that whether and when to do so is a matter of the arbitrator's judgment and discretion, not affected by whether a request for clarification is located on this page or in an archive or nowhere at all. When motions are posted, a link would be provided to any archived discussion and there would be an opportunity for further discussion. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' views and discussion

• Comment: There has been detailed discussion from time to time as to how we should decide which alternative proposal passes when multiple proposals on the same topic receive the required majority. In past instances, there have been a couple of times when it was not at all clear which of two alternatives has been adopted, which have been generally been resolved when one or two arbitrators struck their support from their second choices so that the outcome was clarified. Even now, it's not clear to me whether in a case with a required majority of 7, if proposal 1.1 has 8 supports and no opposes, and alternative proposal 1.2 has 9 supports and no opposes but three of the supports are labelled "second choice," which one is enacted. And if one allows for oppose votes also, then it gets even more complicated. A month or so ago, one of our most senior Clerks wrote a note in userspace about how we might address these situations (see, User:David.Mestel/ArbComvoting), which would eliminate these ambiguities, but at the time I judged the proposal to be a bit too complicated to recommend adoption. (paragraph) With respect to these particular motions, a further complication is that the arbitrators felt compelled either to vote for my "motion 1," as a whole, or Jpgordon's alternative motion 2, also as a whole. There were differences not only in the specific sanctions that I thought could be lifted but that Jpg thought should be kept in force, but also in other nuances of the wording (my motion was a narrative with admonitions and observations; Jpg's was just a list, and some arbs might not have cared for my verbosity or my dicta). It's a commonplace in the legal and political science literature that the order of voting and whether issues are voted on jointly and singly can sometimes decide the result of the voting. This has happened in several significant U.S. Supreme Court cases (I've actually been researching a real-world article on the subject; boring details on request; compare also Arrow's theorem). The fairest thing to do here, if the committee determines that there is a problem here that ought to receive further attention in the interests of fairness or the appearance of fairness, would be to vote on the termination or continuation of each of the sanctions as to which the two motions are in disagreement, individually. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The statement 'support as second preference' means that I supported motion 2, but expressed a preference for motion 1 to be adopted if the two emerged with equal approval. In this case they did not have equal approval; motion 1 attracted opposition which was not present for motion 2. In that case the support for motion 2 still stands. The support for either motion was because both took the Everyking case forward by lifting some restrictions, but maintaining some in force; the reason for indicating a preference for motion 1 was because it did not expressly continue a provision which was common sense, would not normally need to be stated, and was difficult to enforce. However a preference for support is not a conditional oppose. Had I intended that meaning, I would have written it explicitly. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 09:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Though the motion was closed a little faster than I might have preferred (specifically because of this fuss), the result is consistent with ArbCom's methods in the past. When alternate proposals are put forward, and both pass, the one with the most support wins. In this case, it's even simpler. Open motions, in general, are considered passed as soon as they are supported by a majority of arbitrators. Motion 2 thus could have been considered passed and immediately enacted by the clerks after this vote by Charles Matthews, which made the vote for the first motion 6-2-1 and the vote for the second motion 8-0. The clerks wisely waited, since six and five arbitrators, respectively, had not made their opinions known. In the ensuing three days, the second motion gained four more votes; the first gained two. The consensus of the committee was quite clear and unambiguous at that point; of the two alternate motions, the one with the most support carried. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  In answer to Avruch: my own interpretation of the meaning of people voting to support both motions is "Either one is exactly fine with me; I'll go along with the consensus of the Committee". This is based on the assumption that all were aware the two were alternates. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  I think it was pretty clear the two motions were alternates, especially given your comment in opposing my motion that you were offering your own, and the number of references either to "second choice" or "either is fine" or whatever. The fundamental problem may still be, as I observed above, that people were given the choice of voting for your proposal or mine or both or neither, rather than parsing the specifics of each one. Of course any arbitrator could have asked for a division of the question and no one did, but even so. How can division of the question be a redlink? Where are our parliamentary law and procedure articles? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  We have it at division (vote) :) -- bainer ( talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  No, no, "division (vote)" or "division of the assembly" refers to the voting process itself, in a legislature or parliamentary body. A request or motion for a "division of the question" (or "to divide the question") is a request that separate, divisible aspects or parts of a main motion be voted on separately. This is definitely going on my wiki-to-do list. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think the confusion here is that, as David Mestel observes, these alternative wordings were labelled "1" and "2" and not "1" and "1.1", as is commonly the practice. Clearly none of us intended that these should be anything other than alternatives. I vote that Josh goes home and practices his numbers some more :) -- bainer ( talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • To exonerate Josh, I will plead guilty to being the person who introduced the complex numeration scheme "1", "2" into this discussion. Per my comment above, everyone understood these motions were alternatives and I don't believe this contributed in any significant way to the situation. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I understood from Josh's comment these were alternatives. I also understood the question behind them to be - certain matters were agreed redundant (or emerged as such by consensus), but a couple of the restrictions were not clearly agreed redundant and the decision was centered around whether those should be continued at this time. This was my reading of the difference between 1 and 2, and I noted more support seemed to coalesce for the view that considered they should continue.

I am happy to see it re-considered if that would help, since a decision must not only be considered, but must visibly be seen to be clear in its decision where possible. In editorial disputes that often means "go and re-check consensus on it", as in last month's rollback RFAR decline. I'm willing to take the same view here as well. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, wait a sec. Have any arbitrators expressed any concern that the result is incorrect or did not reflect our consensus? I mean, we're right here, we're paying attention to this page, it's been brought up on the mailing list, it was brought up on AN/I, and I haven't heard so much as a suggestion from anyone in ArbCom that this was not the appropriate outcome. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Given that there were two motions, each being considered in toto, the conclusion that motion 2 superseded motion 1 is certainly defensible. However, I can't be sure whether a majority of the continuing restrictions that your motion and mine disagreed on, might have been terminated if the points had been voted on item-by-item. If Everyking were able to come back in a reasonable time and raise the individual items again (and we would re-vote now knowing that it should be done differently), that would be okay. But the last point of your motion also locks him out of making another appeal for another full year, and given the ambiguity of the result on the current appeal, that does bother me. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes that bothers me too. Paul August ☎ 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a lesson here on "block voting" alternatives which are similar but not identical. I'm happy to do it again more "item by item", simply because although I think it was closed according to intent, it's in a way, better to revote it than to have uncertainty. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

After considering this for some time, and in view of the dispute over the format of the voting that arose through no fault of Everyking, I have concluded that it will be in the interest of actual and perceived fairness to offer new motions. This assumes that Everyking would like for the matter to be reconsidered at this point. The motions will be formatted so that the continuation of each sanction still in force following the adoption of motion 2 would be voted upon individually. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• PHG ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), notification
• Elonka ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), notification
• Daniel ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), initiator

Statement by Daniel

I ask that the Committee consider amending the above case; in particular remedy one, " PHG restricted", which was passed uncontested and currently reads:

PHG ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient 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.

I propose to make the simple change of "articles" to "pages". Although this may seem minute to the point of being redundant and a waste of time, I respectfully request that the Committee considers the comments made at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles, and also respectfully ask whether Committee members feel that the current remedy is effective in dealing with this and similar situations in the future.

Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Sam

The remedy explicitly allows him to edit talk pages, so he would not be restricted in that way. Given the history of PHG, it is (in my opinion) fair to assume that should these articles be deleted, he will simply create more on different topics and claim that the MfD does not mandate a G4 deletion as the text and subject matter is different, even if the disruption is the same in everything but subpage title. I feel there is little doubt the MfD will be closed as delete.

Furthermore, on the specific issue of userpages, I believe that findings of fact such as:

• "PHG has cited scholarly books and articles for propositions that the cited works do not fairly support",
• "PHG has isolated on a particular statement or quotation within a work and taken it out of context without fairly presenting the viewpoint of the source taken as a whole",
• "[R]eview of several of PHG's sourced edits versus the content of the original sources confirms that several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion", and
• "[PHG] has often failed to acknowledge any legitimacy to the concerns raised about his edits"

...suggest PHG will continue to edit medieval history userspace copies in a manner which contradicts the userspace policy, which states that subpages "[are] not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia", as well as providing that "pages kept in userspace should not be designed to functionally substitute for articles or Wikipedia space pages" (emphasis mine). I believe a simple modification to the restriction will stop said disruption.

Respectfully, Daniel ( talk) 10:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Brad

"I trust that he will be guided by the outcome of that discussion and not demand (for example) that he be allowed to keep created new userspace pages and requiring new MfD's if this MfD closes with a delete result" — if he does, I agree that this request is moot; however, given the text of his talk page over the last couple of days, I find this highly unlikely. Would you suggest immediately speedy deleting any futher userpage copies regardless of whether they apply to the letter of CSD G4 or not, leaving a warning, and then blocking if it reoccurs? I'd be happy to adopt that if you, as a respected community member (in this situation, as opposed to Committee member in a formal voting environment), feel that it is the best course of action. Daniel ( talk) 22:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Original research is not welcome on Wikipedia. PHG has been asked not to edit certain topics because he has been unable to comply with this requirement for whatever reason. If PHG is writing about these same topics in userspace, there is a high probability that it is original research. We should not be required to spend even more volunteer time to debug each incident. There is no reason for an editor to compile original research in userspace, and Wikipedia is not a hosting provider. PHG should be warned that this activity is not allowed, and that if continued, the result will be a block. Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

I see what Daniel is getting at here, and I support it, but think that it could be even stronger. The problem as I see it isn't just that PHG is continuing to skate the edge of his restrictions, but that he has never indicated, even once, an acknowledgement that he understood what he did wrong.

This is actually symptomatic of a larger problem which I see with the way that the Wikipedia culture implements blocks. And I am speaking here as a professional online community manager, who has been doing this for 18 years. In a nutshell: When someone is disruptive within a community, and they are blocked repeatedly, you shouldn't keep letting them back in, unless the individual acknowledges that they understood what they did wrong, and further, that they are capable of promising that they're going to do better. Otherwise we are just setting ourselves up with a revolving door, where a disruptive editor just continues to disrupt. It is reasonable to give everyone a free pass for their first (and maybe second) block. But we should follow a three-strike rule. Three problems, and still no indication that the editor is going to do better, then they should just be "out".

PHG is a classic example of the problem. Even during his most recent block, he continues to argue with FT2, he continues to proclaim his innocence (see User talk:PHG#Block). Every indicator that I have seen from PHG, says that he is just going to continue with problematic behavior, that he is going to keep repeating the same arguments, and that he is going to keep on doing effectively the same things that led to the ArbCom case in the first place. In my opinion, what needs to be done is that he needs to be blocked indefinitely, until he is able to make a promise that he is going to do better. If he can't do that, then don't let him back. We've all got better things to do with our time, than to keep cleaning up after him. I do understand the desire to "hope for reform," but it has to be a reasonable hope. If PHG gave his word that he was going to try to reform, sure, I could have hope too. But he has not. -- El on ka 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(followup) Since PHG continues to violate sanctions (today he re-created an article in his userspace that had been deleted at MfD, and he is continuing to argue against consensus at various talkpages), I am requesting another block. Details and diffs are available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:PHG. -- El on ka 23:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Abd

I became concerned, in following the MfD mentioned above, that the ArbComm decision was being misrepresented. I found it quite carefully crafted and precise. It did not generally condemn PHG's work, but noted problems with his sourcing. The FoF did not reject his work in toto, and it specifically asserted a continuation of an assumption of good faith, which would indicate that the sourcing problems found were not considered deliberate falsification of sources, but rather unintentional misrepresentation of a kind that, while less than cautious and careful, and certainly improper and worthy of reprimand, commonly happens when a writer has a POV. Combined with tendentious and uncivil argument, this justified a ban from editing the relevant articles, for a year, but participation in those articles, through Talk, was permitted and encouraged, provided it was civil.

In the MfD, however, I found many statements that exaggerated what had been decided, or even that implied the contrary of what had been decided. Thus, because much of this originally came from adverse parties in the Arbitration, it appeared to me that an original content dispute and conflict and resulting enmity between editors was being continued through the MfD. Rather than repeat all of this (I have no intention of blackening the name of any editor) I'll refer to the MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles. I placed a note above the editor comments flagging the involvement of editors in the prior arbitration, with no implication of impropriety; this resulted in a nascent edit war, terminated when another editor, who had, in my opinion, cross the line into edit warring and incivility, prudently self-reverted. (Though, without that, I would not have reverted, but rather would have followed WP:DR.) (This is described in an AN/I report, currently at WP:AN/I#Edit warring, general incivility at MFD - alert the media) My original notice was moved to Talk for the MfD. Other involved editors began commenting on my Talk page. [5].

It became apparent to me that there is a well of bad feelings about PHG and his contributions. I have no opinion about who was right and who was wrong (and both can be right and both can be wrong). However, the ArbComm decision did not do what was claimed about it, that I could see. I have no action to recommend to ArbComm, it seemed the decision was very clear and properly crafted; however, the decision only dealt with PHG, and there is another side to this, which came out in the MfD, where the most negative parts of the ArbComm ruling, which was precise and nuanced, were emphasized, and the positive aspects were ignored, such as the affirmation of ArbComm that good faith continued to be assumed, and the encouragement of PHG to continue to contribute, including to Talk with the history articles, where his userspace collection of materials might be of assistance. The deletion of the files (as has now been done) could be a hindrance to that contribution, though minor. There were other remedies suggested that would have addressed legitimate concerns without inhibiting PHG's legitimate work: for the concerns that he was using his space as a web host, the files could be blanked, leaving the working material accessible to him in History. For the concerns about the lost History, the files could have been restored from prior deletions or the like. The concern that the files would be a source of further incorrectly sourced edits was already covered by the ArbComm restriction to Talk; another editor would then have to take responsibility for the verification of any sources asserted and the appropriateness of the text. I would not, myself, ask for Deletion Review, since less troublesome remedies exist for PHG and I have no interest in the files, or the underlying dispute. My sole reason for making this statement is to call the attention of ArbComm to an abuse of an ArbComm ruling. If the ruling was, in fact, as negative about PHG as has been claimed, and I was simply out to lunch, I'd appreciate correction so that whatever disruption took place does not take place again. -- Abd ( talk) 23:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor update by Orderinchaos

The MfD closed delete two days ago. The rationale was: "Delete - Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages is relevant here. User space is not a free pass to hide articles that were deleted.". Orderinchaos 21:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Update by Daniel

After the MfD closed as delete, PHG proceeded to recreate User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance and, when that was deleted per CSD G4, created User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century). He has also since been blocked again for violating the remedies of the case in the mainspace; see this section. Daniel ( talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• Recuse, obviously. Daniel ( talk) 09:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm not sure that a change is required. The MfD is ongoing and I will not prejudge it, but if it results in the userspace pages being deleted then recreation would be barred anyway. If it does not, then PHG can continue to attempt to bring his userspace pages in line with NPOV and other policies and then draw attention on talk pages. I do not see the disruption on talk pages which needs to be tackled by banning PHG from them. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• The case closed less than a week ago. I tried to be precise in the wording of the decision in recognizing that the primary (though not sole) issue with PHG's editing was the introduction of questionable mainspace content, so the remedy was focused primarily on that issue as well. If it proves necessary, I am not averse to expanding the remedy, but I would rather do so on the basis of more than a few days' experience in the immediate aftermath of the decision. For what it is worth, I do not see PHG's participation in the MfD as especially problematic, but I trust that he will be guided by the outcome of that discussion and not demand (for example) that he be allowed to keep created new userspace pages and requiring new MfD's if this MfD closes with a delete result. I am more troubled by his creating new articles on the borderline of the areas from which he is restricted from editing in mainspace and I hope he will be mindful of the overall intent of the committee's decision. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• At this stage, decline. The decision was not arbitrary. PHG has made good contributions in some areas. Unfortunately he is also highly tendentious in others and while some of his editing is good, a significant part is unusable (and he doesn't seem to recognize this fully). The remedy for article space is to remove the ability to disrupt completely. But the remedy for other spaces does not need to be so blunt. Provided he can contribute usefully, his actions on talk pages are not problematic beyond management. For example, they can be ignored if they prove unhelpful. PHG is also under a remedy that clarifies certain kinds of conduct are disruptive, if they involve failure to acknowledge consensus, which is unusually not stated as a principle but as a remedy whose repeated breach is actually actionable. If PHG were to act in a disruptive manner, for example by creating fork pages, or adding bulk text to talk pages without fair cause, or otherwise, then there are normal administrative tools and approaches able to handle this. (As with most Wikipedia dispute resolution we don't use them unless there is good cause.) When I blocked PHG recently, I reviewed his talk page contributions and found some were acceptable, some were problematic; there was a concern but not yet actionable. If time passes and PHG continues to try and raise topics on which the community has deemed his editing unhelpful then a final warning that he would be blocked if he continues, then warnings and Remedy 4 would be the way to go, via usual admin tools and WP:TE/ WP:DISRUPT/ WP:CONSENSUS (and possibly WP:GAME/ WP:POINT/ WP:AE if applicable). I decline therefore not because it's not a concern, but because actually the community already has all it needs to fairly handle it, if/when it were to become intolerable. For an example of PHG being notified on his conduct, see User talk:PHG#Block. We should allow a degree of patience, but that's not without limit. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• One of the reasons behind article space restrictions (not banning) is a hope of a reform. Restricting users from talk pages would lead nowhere unless there is disruption of course. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The modification I proposed explicitly allows PHG to contribute to talk pages; see my reply to Sam in my section above. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 21:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes Daniel but you are talking about disruption above which I don't see. The remedies are based on FoFs and not assumptions. We can wait and see especially that the MfD is still open. What I hope is that everyone accepts the decision of the closing admin instead of wasting time around DRv, AN/I, etc because that would definitely lead to 'disruption' - whether directly or indirectly. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • With PHG having recreated an article after it was deleted at MfD, and trying to create another page with a different title (now also deleted), I feel that this is no longer an "assumption". PHG has also been reblocked for disrupting the mainspace as well. Daniel ( talk) 03:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Opposed to changing this case's decisions so soon. I'd give it a little longer to see how it plays out in practise. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

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

• JzG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), initiator

Statement by Guy

Matt Sanchez has had a long and tiresome series of issues with his article, Matt Sanchez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This has resulted in multiple (at least a dozen) OTRS tickets and inevitable delays in fixing disputed and problematic content. It would, I think, help all concerned if we could have a variation to the arbitration ruling allowing Sanchez to make comments on the content of his article, on its talk page, provided civility and decorum are maintained. His behaviour in OTRS interactions I've seen has been entirely civil, so I think this is not ridiculously over-optimistic. It would also need a restriction on others to ensure that they, too, maintain civility, especially given the agenda apparent in some edits to the article. The exact request would be:

1. That Matt Sanchez' account, user:Bluemarine, be unblocked for the sole purpose of noting requested changes and pointing out errors of fact on talk:Matt Sanchez and user talk:Bluemarine.
2. That any violation of civility and decorum by user:Bluemarine, and any edit outside the prescribed bounds, will result in an immediate re-application of the block.
3. That article probation at Matt Sanchez (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be rigorously enforced, and that any uninvolved admin per the usual definition) may topic ban any disruptive user from that article and its talk page and the talk page of user:Bluemarine. There will be zero tolerance of trolling or harassment of user:Bluemarine.

I note the article is already under probation, so this does not represent an extension of the scope or findings, only a note that they will be enforced in an attempt to allow an article subject to raise legitimate concerns about his article. Apologies for expanding this after it starts, but I thought I'd better clarify exactly what I'm asking. Guy ( Help!) 11:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oh well. Please strike, he has just used an IP to evade his ban. Count one more for the triumph of hope over experience. Guy ( Help!) 15:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

I support Guy's suggestion fully. Daniel ( talk) 10:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More sockpuppetry, I hear. Daniel ( talk) 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrence Cohen

Bluemarine in his various pseudonyms has demonstrated a singular inability to be useful for or on Wikipedia--there is no benefit for us to give him an inch of support or room here; he can go to OTRS for issues with his bio. That said, turning the other cheek even against hateful fellows is a virtue, so I would not object to him getting one last final chance to post to the talk page of his bio only. Recommend that if he even so much as touches another page under any username or with even a whiff of the trademark homophobia, zealotry, or bias that was his staple, that he be permanently shown the door once and for all. Being a third-tier media personality gives him no special license nor does it give us any obligation to do any more or less. Lawrence § t/ e 15:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Scratching per the comment I completely missed by Guy about his just now ban evasion. We don't need him. Lawrence § t/ e 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Request extensively refactored. AGK § 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have no problems with permitting Sanchez to comment, provided that he maintains the requisite level of decorum. If he proves unable to do that, the ban comes right back. Kirill 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have a problem with Sanchez simultaneously working through OTRS *and* on the talk page. If he works better one-to-one in OTRS than previously on the talk page, I don't feel that's a good argument to let him back on the talk page. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 00:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

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)

Clerk notes

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)

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" [6]: "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. WjB scribe 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)

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. [7]

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)
  • See also the detailed discussion of principle on COI in the Prem Rawat case. While "principles are not policy" is engraved on Arbitrators' hearts, I think the cited policy snippet is a propos here, to what I said above. Charles Matthews ( talk) 15:18, 7 April 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)
4. Per Charles Matthews above discussion comment I support this change for now although I think one non vandalism revert per week is enough and recommend that change. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:34, 9 April 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)
4. James F. (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Fine. Kirill 14:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
6. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
7. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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)
• This has been inactive for nearly an entire month. I move to archive this in 48 hours unless there is some new activity. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 06:57, 21 April 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)