Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus case dealt with Eastern European topics, currently I, and several other contributors, have problems with on of this case involved parties, namely user:Halibutt's disruptive conduct practice. I asked assistance for solving this problem on several places [1] [2] and I was informed that the proper place would be WP:RFAR itself. Current problems, involving Halibutt, includes continuing neglect towards WP:POINT, WP:AGF and general harassment of various contributors. For more detail explaining my problem please see my post at Arbitration enforcement. I would like to receive assistance solving this situation, because such disruption of particular contributor done on Wikipedia could be harmful for the future of the project. Thank you.-- Lokyz 21:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The case of User:Halibutt is indeed one very important to this ArbCom case. Halibutt was once a very active member of this project, among the Top 200 most active contributors, and an author of several Featured articles as well as many DYKs. However months - if not years - of insults and baiting (with "are you a liar hallucinating between interludes of POV pushing and peppering Wikipedia with propaganda?" being my favorite example of comments that are allowed to go unpunished, thus certifying that CIV/NPA are dead policies) from several users with rather strong POV and a feeling of ownership over many areas Halibutt was interested in (ex. history of Poland-Lithuania) eventually resulted in Halibutt drastically limiting his activity in the project. Despite the harassment he faces, Halibutt still occasionally comes back and contributes to an article, or creates new ones - only to receive in return comments like "your metaphors really show your level of culture and bias", "You been whining... So why don't you have the balls to simply leave, as promised so many times before?". Just a few days ago, Halibutt expanded one article, only to be flamed on talk. The comments he recently left on my user page, and to which I assume Lokyz refers above, illustrate the problem. Yes, Halibutt's post is not the most diplomatic, and he makes some generalizations I strongly disagree with. But he also nails the problem: several POV-pushers, Usenet-type flame discussion warriors and pure trolls are driving good content creators away. User:Halibutt is not the only one who has limited his activity, due to harassment from certain editors (many of whom named as parties in my ArbCom); I could name several others who decided that they find no pleasure in contributing to the project in exchange for constant insults and sniping (originating, among others and often enough, from Lokyz, ex. [3], [4], [5]). This is why CIV/AGF/NPA policies were invented in the first place: to prevent fans of sniping and commenting on other editors from driving away those who prefer a more civil and academic discource. Nobody can say that driving content contributors away is good - particulary if the said contributors never violate our policies unless grossly baited. But this is what's happening, right here, right now. Gross incivility is going unpunished, baited users either lose temper and join the trolls and/or leave the project. This is the real problem, threatening the entire project and turning it into an arena where we are seeing the wiki-version of 'survival of the fittest' - only those with most foul tongue and thickest skin survive, the rest gets banned or leaves, disgusted. I can only hope ArbCom will address this issue before it is too late.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

He only received those comments after posting a 1000+ word rant calling everyone in a row trolls, ultras, morons, idiots, nationalists, etc etc. on your talk page. That it was not an outburst of frustration is proved by five of his postings of the same content. The mess on Narutowicz page started not after he expanded it, but after he unilaterally moved it without any discussions knowing perfectly well that it will be challenged (we been there so many times before to assume otherwise). While his productive edits are welcome, such distruptive behaviour is certainly not. Renata 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You got the order of the events a bit wrong. 1st, Halibutt expands the article. 2nd, he moves it as per his sources. 3rd, move war erupts, with Halibutt getting flamed at talk for daring to move the article he destubbed and expanded. 4th, Halibutts post the "rant" complaining about the editors who flamed him. 5th, one of the editors who flamed him complains here about the rant. As far as I see it, the problem would never appear if certain editors would try to assume good faith and talk to the editor who expaned the article and presumably knows a thing or two about the subject - before they started flaming him and accusing of various things for daring to move the said page.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  18:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A brief note. As per the obvious problem (above) where it is unclear indeed "who is more wrong" as well as another "Request for clarification" (see #Piotrus below), I would thoroughly welcome ArbCom taking the case back, analyzing the editors' behavior (including mine) and render a meaningful judgment to replace or add to the too vague one rendered and voted earlier. ArbCom took upon itself one a very messy case and in the end produced a non-decision whose consequences are bound to bring up these endless "clarification requests". I was tempted to start such requests on my own several times and decided not to since I did not want to be seen as the one who does not let the sleeping dogs lie, bygones be bygones, etc. The fact is that all dogs are awake and the proof is that these requests continue to pop up. Perhaps it is inevitable that the case needs to be brought to a more meaningful closure. Even if such would keep "an amnesty" intact, clarifying what parties misbehaved, which parties "are reminded" and what the offenses were are especially needed in view of the outright defiance of the involved editors to even admit to any wrongdoing. -- Irpen 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I often disagree with Irpen. This is not the case here, I completly share his sentiments.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Polish editors or single Polish editor that is the first question. Violation of WP:AGF or violation of Wikipedia rules (like WP:RM) is another. POV bashing or contributions is a third. Generalization or research - that means specific, but by no means selective details is fourth. Knowing the subject or googling on occasion is fifth. And please WP:AGF - I'm not trying to insult anyone, I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, I'm not using metaphors like knives - I'm just asking direct questions.-- Lokyz 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is part of Halibutt's post: " Better yet, wiki is like a town where you can visit all sorts of restaurants with different cuisines. Plenty of Polish pierogi bars, pizzerias, stylish French bistros, English fish'n'chips eateries, and so on. However, there's only one Lithuanian restaurant with flies in every dish and a psychopathic chef running with his knife from one bar to the other, just to kill some clients here and there.

Perhaps it's my problem that I like Lithuanian cuisine and would love to visit the restaurant. Yet, apparently I shouldn't. And I shouldn't even get near, as it's dangerous. The only remedies I know are to either kill the crazed chef (but I'd have to do it alone as there's nobody else to see the problem), open up my own Lithuanian restaurant (impossible, as the crazed chef would kill me) - or move to another town." [6] I find this language disturbing. Novickas 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Selective quoting is not the best method of citing somebody. And I'd hope that ArbCom does loook one day into the activities of the "crazed chief" and his friends. As amusing as the metaphore is, the problem is quite real.--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  05:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You did recognize that selective quoting is not the best way? Then how about google or google books searches like for example "Lithuanian+nationalist" ? Meanwhile another question remeins open - did someone know the fact, or did he find it on your list and then googled selective? As for evidences - you might wwant to read the Talk:Antanas Baranauskas page - there you'll find plethora of "knowledge" evidences. I did especially like this one "Right... So a guy who wrote some poems in Lithuanian is automatically a Lithuanian, right? Err... wrong, my dear. Similarly, currently the article suggests Baranowski (as he called himself) was born in Lithuania, even though he was born in the Russian empire to a Polish family." Quite an amusing read, a good example how someone tries to expand an article using "knowledge". Most fun part is that this so called "knowledge" denies every fact, that does not suit it's beliefs - even Polish encyclopedias, clearly quoting him as "poeta litewski". If you'd read it as a whole, you'll soon find quite a recognizable behavioral pattern. And i do will try to describe it with metaphors, that's your speciality.-- Lokyz 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

When I started Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus most of attention was concentrated on Piotrus disruptive conduct practices. However his allies, like user:Lysy, user:Halibutt, behavior in some extend was even worst, this especially include Halibutt conduct. Currently user:Lokyz listed problems traces its roots year back. Uncontrolled and disruptive manner of Halibutt’s edits resulted Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Halibutt , there community critically evaluated his misconducts towards ethical slurs directed towards Lithuanians, excessive neglect towards WP:POINT, inability to cooperate, attempts to derail article renaming processes etc. In my view after Halibutt’ RfC nothing changed in his behavior. Let me illustrate with some examples. Exactly the same ethnicity driven commentaries were produced and later. Excessive naming various contributors as trolls [7] even those, with whom he never interacted; the most shameful of those was his so called “leaving message” [8] there he accused editor of criminal act. As you may guess Halibutt never proven that such offenses were made, despite was asked. Now his friend Piotrus trying, by picking selective diffs, to show that Halibutt’s received criticism is for nothing. In other hand Halibutt harassed editors with impressive stubbornness [9]. These are “impressive” offensives as contributor Halibutt declared that he left Wikipedia (current status of his involvement is mystery to me) I am personally disappointed that those insults transited to main space, like [10], [11]. These are few examples of Halibutt’s past conducts. After Piotrus’ arbitration case ended in 2007-08-19 general amnesty was declared. In 2007-08-28 Halibutt started move-revert campaign on Stanisław Narutowicz article. When he was advised by several contributors to use proper procedures regarding article naming, Halibutt accused contributor of vandalism [12] . Later, completely ignoring WP:POINT, WP:OWN, started removing parts of article, portraying it like some sort of game [13]. While is not secret that Halibutt’s improved articles has original research, POV foundations I disagree with Hali butt’s neglect towards WP:OWN. Soon afterwards of main space disruption Halibutt turned his sight on administrators Piotrus talk page. Virtually Piotrus talk page was converted to attack page [14], were he attacked various editors and labeled them “ultras”, “blinded ultras”, “idiots”, “bunch of hammers” “people lacking honour” on the most nasty ways. As we can see in the past there were attempts to solved problems regarding Halibutt’s behavior, but those attempts did not prevented future Halibutt disruption. So I would like to receive suggestions from Arbitress how to deal with such Halibutt’s disruption practices. Particularly then contributor thinks, that disrupting Wikipedia is refreshing. M.K. 10:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment: I would require to be convinced that User:Halibutt is currently a disruptive editor here. Some of what is posted above is far from relevant to that point. The page move story shows that in the end due process was applied. Perhaps it should have been applied sooner, but simply moving a page cannot be classed as disruptive. Charles Matthews 15:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles Matthews, let me point out directly that I see wrong on those edits. Without consensus article was moved for three times. [15] [16] [17]. In my view breach of WP:CONS. What about rationale under page title move “revert vandal” [18], then there was no vandal. What about removing article parts [19] in my view its is classical example of WP:POINT and breach of WP:OWN. How explain such “suggestion” on other article’s page [20] (such Halibutts behavior, during article’s naming procedure, was discussed earlier [21] as well.), another neglect towards WP:POINT. What about his “comments” regarding contributors, there they named as “rolls”, “idiots” etc. [22]. As my earlier presentation above shows, these are not new or isolated incidents. So how to approach these problems, advice is badly needed and soon. Thank you, M.K. 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BURO. But I would advise everyone concerned to drop the combative attitudes right now. There is not unlimited patience with these chronic problems. Charles Matthews 13:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker resulted in Deathrocker, now called Daddy Kindsoul ( talk · contribs), being placed on revert parole. This was violated at least seven times in the following year and resulted in seven separate, logged blocks. Since that time, this user has been blocked twice more, most recently by me for one year as provided by the remedy.

Daddy Kindsoul claims that the revert parole was for one year only and that he is no longer under any sanction. I can find no reference to a time limit in the arbitration case. My question, then, is whether or not the remedies in this specific case were to apply for one year only, were to apply until the user had gone one year without violating the parole, or whether the parole was indefinite. -- Yamla 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I find no reference in the arbitration decision to any time limitation. There may be other issues relating to this block that are discussed on the user's talkpage in connection with his original unblock request, but they can be addressed at the administrator level if the user wishes to pursue the matter. Newyorkbrad 14:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that? I disagree with the 1 year block for the reason that the original remedy did not provide the escalating clause. (The Enforcement section did =.=) However, I do believe that he is on revert parole indefinitely if a date wasn't mentioned (unless someone willing to clarify this?) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Dmcdevit (who was on the ArbCom at the time of that decision) said that it was probably unlimited duration if a date wasn't mentioned. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like the Arbcom to confirm that User:V. Z. is an alternate account or a sockpuppet of User:Zacheus, and is subject to the decision. (Originally, the account V. Z. was the user's real name, then it was blocked on the user's request, then it was - again on the user's request and to protect his privacy - renamed to V. Z. and the user created another account Zacheus to use [he indeed confirmed that they are operated by the same person], but the block did not carry over after the rename.) - Mike Rosoft 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason for this request? A user can have more than one account as long as they are not used abusively. Thatcher131 17:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; in fact, I have an alternate account, and it's an open secret which one it is (hint: look at the history of my user page). On Czech Wikipedia V.Z. was known to evade his ban using sockpuppet accounts (I don't know of any evidence of their misuse on English Wikipedia), and also had a habit of wikilawyering, so I would like it to be explicitly declared. - Mike Rosoft 20:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Given Zacheus was put under restrictions, it would make sense along the lines of the recent incident with Vickers on AE, no? Daniel 09:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am uneasy about this request because it is so vague. Certainly it is part of the case evidence that V. Z. and Zacheus are both accounts used by this person. He changed the name of the V. Z. account because it was his personal name; the account still links to talk page edits signed with his real name. However, neither account has contributed much lately and there are no accusations that Zacheus has been misbehaving, so the only outcome of this request is to call attention to the prior case and its particulars. Thatcher131 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there is no action required here and this thread can be archived, but would appreciate confirmation from at least one arbitrator before doing so. Newyorkbrad 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Probably best to make a note at the Arb case page that a user renamed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps}

Per request, I have restated Clarification 2. Credit to JzG for most of the languge:

Banned User:WordBomb, the operator the website mentioned in the case, is pursuing exactly the same campaign that led to the sanctions through Wikipedia Review (WR). Simultaneuously, some pro-LaRouche activists are pursuing a campaign against User:Cberlet on the same site. Simultaneously, the banned user WordBomb is also pursuing a campaign against those who advocated removal and banning of links to ASM, also on the same site. Simultaneously, Herschelkrustofsky, also banned from Wikipedia, is pursuing a campaign of harassment and outing against SlimVirgin, alleging sockpuppetry ( WP:SOCK is very clear on the distinction between a sockpuppet and an alternate account, and his evidence in any case establishes no credible link between the two named accounts). In another thread, allegations are made that User:Ryulong is a sockpuppet. In another thread, banned User:Jon Awbrey is speculating on an inappropriate and undeclared editing relationship between User:Jayjg and User:Jpgordon, also implying sock- or meatpuppetry.

In the arbitration case, the need to be able to draw distinctions is discussed. This is as it should be. It is, right now, very hard indeed - near impossible I'd say - to draw a distinction between Judd Bagley engaging in harassment at ASM, and Judd Bagley pursuing precisely the same campaign at WR. When Judd Bagley pursues a campaign against those who advocated banning of ASM, it does not matter whether it is here or at WR. Within the context of Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, Bagley's agitation against those who prevented his attempts to skew the content in a particular direction, are not relevant or welcome.

I propose therefore that the following clarification be adopted, which takes into account the good faith concerns of those Wikipedia editors who are active on WR or consider it has at least the potential to act as part of the essential mechanism of checks and balances:

• No more links to Wikipedia Review threads should be added until the problem of offsite harassment, outing and coordination of abuse is fixed. In particular, restating as fact the allegations published at ASM is wholly unacceptable.
• If any editor believes that Wikipedia Review contains a valid criticism, supported by sound evidence, of any Wikipedia editor or process, then three channels are open to them:

• Wikipedia:Mailing lists, specifically WikiEN-l, which is an officially supported channel for meta-debate, and is at one remove from the content of the project, thus allowing discussion with much less risk of inflaming already tense situations.
• Email to the arbitration committee, who investigate and discuss privately or in public, as appropriate, credible and supported allegations of abuse of the project.
• OTRS, which is a back-channel open to article subjects and those affected by content issues, where independent trusted Wikipedians can review the basis of the case and make a decision as to whether, and how, it should be raised.

• Attempts (by Wikipedia Review members especially) to reinsert links removed by others should be sanctioned. Semiprivatemusings 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks like three remedies we went nowhere near, and the short answer is "no way". WR wasn't mentioned in the case. I deplore having to explain why this matter is not to be reopened the day after the case was closed. Please use this offer of clarification in a more reasonable fashion. Charles Matthews 16:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the longer version was necessary, to point out that, yes, WR is covered by the ArbCom case - and it certainly was mentioned, extensively, both in the meta debate and in Evidence.

But humour me. I am trying to fix a problem here. We have Judd Bagley openly pursuing his agenda on one site, which is banned, and openly pursuing the same agenda on another, which is not. Or maybe it is, because the same user is doing the same thing as the banned site, so maybe it is banned. With the current result, the site's fans will say it's not banned, the site's opponents will say it is, and the argument will simply carry on. The idea here is to clarify that when ArbCom says that Judd Bagley's campaign of harassment is unacceptable, they mean it is unacceptable everywhere, while satisfying what good faith reasons might exist for opposing links to that particular site. I am prepared to believe that WR may one day return to its original goal of improving Wikipedia, but right now it is repeating exactly the same harassment as ASM, and it's exactly the same individual doing it. Me, I'd simply remove the links, but then you'd have the same thing all over again, so why not clarify that Wikipedia is not the only place where meta debate can take place, and actually fix the problem. Guy ( Help!) 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We have carefully, really, shown principles under which harassment policy can be applied to some external links. This is not a debate. We are not in the business of dealing with facts not in front of us. Our brief concerns the behaviour of editors on Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay...but do you consider wikipedia review to be either encyclopedic for a reference and or a website that is (now at least) overly preoccupied with harassment corrdination towards our editors?-- MONGO 07:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As a forum site, WR on the face of it fails to be a reliable source for anything. The case makes it clear that to "classify" a site by editorial policy in relation to WP is in general a hard thing to do. Since the word "substantially" is used, I would assume there is a tipping point. It is one of Raul's laws, really, that groups can discredit themselves as critics. A site that has what I call an "open season" policy on Wikipedians can do exactly that to its claims to be monitoring and so on. It is not a matter of hostility, as such, and it is not a matter of simply posting claims of bad faith here. Charles Matthews 08:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a small point: Wikipedia Review has been created (and deleted) nine times. Though the last occasion was eight months ago, it may be recreated again. If that happened then the site would be linked, at least according to common practice. Any site that is considered notable enough for an article gets an automatic link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Though somebody has lately been trying to remove the link from Wikipedia Watch. *Dan T.* 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, though you may both feel this is a bigger point than has been made out, the decision whether WR deserves an article is not for the AC, and the hypothetical one about then linking (or naming the URL) is not part of the case. Charles Matthews 12:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The electronic ink is not yet even dry on the decision, which refrained from imposing any blanket link bans whatsoever, before you step in and try to get it "clarified" into an attempt to impose your own standards on external forums, which apparently are to be required to ban all the users you think should be banned, ban all the topics you think should be banned, and perhaps swear a loyalty oath to the ArbCom, before you will deign to permit anybody here to discuss what goes on in those forums. As somebody has already said above, "No way." *Dan T.* 04:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WR ever had a goal "of improving Wikipedia," nonetheless "fixes" like this seem to me akin to throwing more coals on a partially extinguished fire. However, I'm sure Guy's proposal would be welcomed at WP:LINKLOVE— AL ^FOCUS! 05:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect...that LINKLOVE link looks like a pretty POINTY thing to create...in fact, I hope you come up with a better link than that one.-- MONGO 07:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It does sound a bit Orwellian, like the "Ministry of Love". *Dan T.* 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create the redirect, but I like it. Only LINKLOVE can ultimately replace BADSITES. Like Jimbo has said, "Our trust has been broken, and only love can rebuild it."— AL ^FOCUS! 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Jzg, I think Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment or a new policy proposal might be a better venue for your manifesto. (I say manifesto lovingly, being a proudly verbose commenter myself whose posts often approach manifesto-length). Even if they were all of like minds (rather than a split court), I don't think Arbcom has the ability to clarify that case in a way that could settle your concern. It looks like you're arguing they should clarify a decision they didn't make, in a case they didn't consider, weighing evidence they have not heard, utilizing powers they do not possess. Instead, I'd suggest proposing what you want in a new brand new policy proposal, and seeing if you can get a consensus for it. -- Alecmconroy 12:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that Wikipedia is cleansed of WR claims, readers are forced to go to WR to view those claims and the evidences presented there supporting those claims. Some of the claims are nonsense. Others are well supported with evidence. Most are hypothesis remarkably similar in tone, style, and attitude (us v. them) to many on-Wikipedia claims of sockpuppetry. WAS 4.250 20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration case specifically mentions antisocialmedia (ASM). As far as my reading of it goes, this is for the following reasons, among others:

• Wikipedia is not the place to promote your agenda. This is addressed in WP:NPOV (and in WP:BAN, which allows for the banning of those who are here to pursue an agenda).
• Wikipedia is now so big that it is of paramount importance to those advancing an agenda, to get that agenda promoted here.
• Harassment of editors is a natural consequence of this, but that does not make it acceptable; nor does the fact that Wikipedia is now so big as to make harassment inevitable, imply that when people registered some time ago they should have recognised that this would happen.
• We should aspire to a low-to-zero-tolerance approach to harassment. This is recognised in existing policy. WP:HARASS. There is a clear difference between persecution of one's opponents, and sincere debate with an aim of achieving rapprochement or at least a truce, in order to develop content which reflects all significant points of view without editorially favouring one or the other, deferring instead to the balance of independent scholarly opinion.
• Sometimes, people prove incapable of working collaboratively with others. We try to help them, but in the end if they are not capable of working in a collegiate manner we exclude them. This is policy, WP:BAN.
• Sometimes, such people continue the argument, attacks and threats after banning, either by registering new accounts or by using their user space, which blocked editors can still edit. Neither is acceptable. WP:SOCK and WP:PPOL reflect the consensus that nobody has an indefinite right to continue an argument. You only get so many kicks at the can.
• A banned editor is banned because their actions are destructive to the project. They do not become any less destructive when repeated in an external venue.

The reason the arbcom case was brought, and ASM links deemed unacceptable, is because of this last point. Pursuing and escalating an agenda offsite, especially by personalising and attacking those who acted to enforce community consensus and policy by preventing the abuse of Wikipedia to pursue an agenda, is absolutely 100% unacceptable.

Right now, banned User:WordBomb, the operator of ASM, is pursuing exactly the same campaign through Wikipedia Review (WR). Simultaneuously, some pro-LaRouche activists are pursuing a campaign against User:Cberlet on the same site. Simultaneously, the banned user WordBomb is also pursuing a campaign against those who advocated removal and banning of links to ASM, also on the same site. Simultaneously, Herschelkrustofsky, also banned from Wikipedia, is pursuing a campaign of harassment and outing against SlimVirgin, alleging sockpuppetry ( WP:SOCK is very clear on the distinction between a sockpuppet and an alternate account, and his evidence in any case establishes no credible link between the two named accounts). In another thread, allegations are made that User:Ryulong is a sockpuppet. In another thread, banned User:Jon Awbrey is speculating on an inappropriate and undeclared editing relationship between User:Jayjg and User:Jpgordon, also implying sock- or meatpuppetry.

In the arbitration case, the need to be able to draw distinctions is discussed. This is as it should be. It is, right now, very hard indeed - near impossible I'd say - to draw a distinction between Judd Bagley engaging in harassment at ASM, and Judd Bagley pursuing precisely the same campaign at WR. When Judd Bagley pursues a campaign against those who advocated banning of ASM, it does not matter whether it is here or at WR. Within the context of Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, Bagley's agitation against those who prevented his attempts to skew the content in a particular direction, are not relevant or welcome.

Applying the duck test, particularly in respect of banned user WordBomb's actions, it would seem to that Wikipedia Review is covered by the findings of the arbitration case. The findings are carefully worded, and reading the carefully worded findings this fits the following:

• 15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. WR is, by now, substantially dedicated to harassing and outing Wikipedia editors, particularly those members of the administrator community who have been active in achieving the banning of certain editors and preventing them from abusing Wikipedia to pursue their agenda.
• 8) Except for obvious cases, such as ED, it is difficult to sort out sites engaged in criticism of Wikipedia and its editors and administrators from sites engaged in harassment. Likewise, when information is provided about the alleged wrong-doings of Wikipedia users, it can be difficult to differentiate legitimate complaints from bogus ones calculated to cast a user in a false light. Wikipedia Review contains more, more sustained, more personalised and more sinister attacks on administrators than ED did at the time of the original MONGO case, and does now. The actions coordinated on Wikipedia Review have caused more distress, more personal real-world issues and more disruption than the campaigns coordinated on ED.
• 5.1) This decision applies only to links to AntiSocialMedia.net and similar sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users. Attempts to extend this remedy to sites critical of Wikipedia and its users' behavior are discouraged. Wikitruth is critical of Wikipedia, and occasionally hard on Wikipedians. Wikipedia Review is, at present, being actively used by several banned users - e.g. User:WordBomb, User:Jon Awbrey, User:JB1896, user:Internodeuser - to further the campaigns and disruption that led to their original bans. Some editors who are not banned appear to be acting as proxies for these campaigns. Wikipedia Review, while it undoubtedly is critical of Wikipedia, in the same way ASM is also critical of Wikipedia, is also a "site engaged in harassment". The baseless allegations of sockpuppetry by User:SlimVirgin are currently repeated on WR. The assertion of SV's real world identity, as promoted by ASM, is stated as fact on WR. WR is actively engaged in trying to build the memes of their accusations to undermine those who have opposed POV-pushing, soapboxing and vanity abuse of Wikipedia, leading to well-supported bans of those now active on WR. WR also appears to be actively recruiting banned or disenchanted users.

On the other hand, at least one individual (who is active on Wikipedia Review) argued passionately against any attempt to blanket-ban critical sites, and this is supported by the case. The restriction, and as a clarification of the MONGO arbitration, that restriction as well, applies only to sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users, and set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing volunteers. WR is unquestionably engaging in malicious behaviour, and is arguably substantially (and unarguably significantly) devoted to harassing Wikipedia volunteers. This is because it provides a platform and campaigning forum for several individuals, of whom Bagley is the worst. Thus, the problem is not inherent in WR itself but is a result of its current user base.

Wikipedia Review does not, however, constitute a reliable source for information critical of Wikipedia or any individual Wikipedian. Links to Wikipedia Review do not constitute "legitimate criticism", because the criticism has no authority and has, as presently constituted, strongly suspect motives. We would not accept a post on Stormfront as a source for an allegation that an editor is pushing a pro-Zionist POV, and for the same reason we cannot accept a post on Wikipedia Review as a source for any criticism of a Wikipedia editor or admin, because to a very high degree of probability that will be motivated by personal animus.

Wikipedia Review is no longer Daniel Brandt's good-faith attempt to fix Wikipedia through critique, its focus at present is largely to undermine and destroy Wikipedia, or to mould it into a different shape where NPOV is replaced by the POV of those who have, either through choice or through inability, failed to influence content decisions to their own liking. Not everybody on WR is happy with this, I would say. While there is some glee at the undermining of admins willing to make tough calls, there is also some disquiet about some of the actions undertaken by certain individuals, and their motives for contributing.

While assuming good faith, then, we should recognise that WR,in its current state, is dangerous and inimical to the process of building an encyclopaedia - as with any link to offsite blog posts, aggravation, harassment, outing, attacks and other behaviour unacceptable within the framework of Wikipedia, links to WR are likely to be pernicious and corrosive, and (most importantly) not at all likely to actually result in improvements to content. Such links, to WR especially, risk undermining attempts to build consensus in the most contentious of topics. They damage the one thing that Wikipedia is about, above all else, which is co-operating to build the best encyclopaedia we can. So we banned links to ASM, and we should also ban links to WR. But there is more to WR than just Bagley, and there are editors who insist that some WR members, at least, have good intentions of fixing genuine abuse. There is a need to reconcile these, and to arrive at a position where the actual problem, rather than a sideline issue, is fixed. We all, I think, know that links to ASM are a sideshow here, it is Wikipedia Review, first and foremost, whose links concern large numbers of editors and have motivated the majority of recent debates on link removal, attack sites, external link sections in WP:NPA and WP:HARASS and so on. These problems predate ASM, and the particular individual who has done more than anyone else to prevent a BADSITES policy, keep the argument alive, resist any tendency to remove attack links on principle and apply the MONGO ruling to sites other than ED, is active on WR, not ASM.

I propose therefore that the following clarification should be adopted, which takes into account the good faith concerns of those Wikipedia editors who are active on WR or consider it has at least the potential to act as part of the essential mechanism of checks and balances:

• No more links to Wikipedia Review threads should be added until the problem of offsite harassment, outing and coordination of abuse is fixed. In particular, restating as fact the allegations published at ASM is wholly unacceptable.
• The content of Wikipedia Review should be monitored by the Arbitrators periodically, with a view to lifting this restriction if Wikipedia Review reverts to being a good-faith attempt to improve the project, rather than a gathering ground for banned abusers.
• If any editor believes that Wikipedia Review contains a valid criticism, supported by sound evidence, of any Wikipedia editor or process, then three channels are open to them:

• Wikipedia:Mailing lists, specifically WikiEN-l, which is an officially supported channel for meta-debate, and is at one remove from the content of the project, thus allowing discussion with much less risk of inflaming already tense situations.
• Email to the arbitration committee, who investigate and discuss privately or in public, as appropriate, credible and supported allegations of abuse of the project.
• OTRS, which is a back-channel open to article subjects and those affected by content issues, where independent trusted Wikipedians can review the basis of the case and make a decision as to whether, and how, it should be raised.

At the tactical level:

• Threads already linked, which have drifted into attack, are stale, repeat allegations which are also available from a better source, or which contain harassment, intimidation or outing, may be removed, with an explanation, by any editor in good standing. Automated removal, as was done for ED, is strongly discouraged, and it is preferred that subjects defer to independent editors rather than remove old links referring to themselves. Old may be taken as prior to the acceptance date of the attack sites arbitration, a date at which it may be reasonably expected that the community pulled its collective socks up in respect of external harassment.
• Attempts (by Wikipedia Review members especially) to reinsert links removed by others should be sanctioned. Disputes should be referred to the arbitration committee as requests for clarification. If a link contains personalised criticism against an individual, little is lost if the link is temporarily unavailable while it is deliberated in a neutral venue.

I believe that this is a proportionate and reasonable clarification. It addresses a clear and evident present problem, which has been identified by many users; it satisfies the legitimate concern that valid criticism not be suppressed, by identifying three supported routes for that criticism to be assessed and responded to; it removes a farcical situation where we ban eighthundredpoundgorilla.com while allowing links to corneroftheroom.com, where EightHundredPoundGorilla is a prominent member and is pursuing exactly the same agenda, along with several other problematic individuals also pursuing other agendas; it defines a mechanism by which the site, which has as contributors several Wikipedians in good standing, can fix the identified problem and play a full part in what was, at face value, its original purpose; it addresses a significant and serious concern about ongoing offsite harassment of Wikipedians.

And most important of all it does this: it reinforces the point that keeping Wikipedia as a place where it is safe for people to work on documenting controversial issues is much more important than keeping Wikipedia as a place where you can criticise others for the way in which they try to work on documenting controversial issues.

Wikipedia is not at all reluctant to discuss problems and criticisms, but we are not obliged to do so at the same venue where we are working on the core goal of building a verifiably neutral encyclopaedia, especially when doing so risks undermining that vital goal. Guy ( Help!) 12:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If people are limited to 500 words in a case, I don't see that we have to read 2300 in a clarification. Could you take down this manifesto, and ask a simple question if you want a simple answer? Charles Matthews 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles, I am happy to move the reasoning to talk, but I felt it necessary to develop the argument in order to show that this is not seen as just another "ZOMG! Ban WR! BADSITE! BADSITE!" call. Sorry I was verbose, but if the issue was simple it would not need discussion at all. It is restated below, with the actual request highlighted, clerks should feel free to move this to Talk in support if they like. Guy ( Help!) 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

antisocialmedia.net is clearly an attack site, but it was also covered in what even the most prominent policy-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES proponents regard as Reliable Sources. Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack site) was named, not linked. The naming was removed under cover of NPA. We already don't link many shock sites, we just put the addresses in text form. But specifically: is the prohibition on specifically linking, or is naming for encyclopedic purpose in article space covered?

Another point: you don't want people gaming your ruling. But the whole case came about because of the BADSITES advocates grossly gaming the MONGO decision. What can be done when (not if) they start again? Bring yet another case? We're talking about admins reverting at will and blocking people they disagree with - David Gerard 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues which were not resolved in the ruling are not resolved, but remain subject to resolution under our principles, most particularly Wikipedia:No personal attacks, by users, administrators and the dispute resolution process. Fred Bauder 16:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If a particular issue arises (not simply an abstract question), please carefully discuss the matter on talk pages, and if necessary use the dispute resolution process. Please don't edit or wheel war. Fred Bauder 16:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those answer the question: is the resolution against linking intended to cover naming in an encyclopedic context? That's a yes or no question, Fred. - David Gerard 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking =/= naming; cf. the rejection of the proposals prohibiting "referencing" of sites. Kirill 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming the principle against linking, then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy is typical or symptomatic of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other words there is a pretty good reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming. Charles Matthews 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rex Germanus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have moved this here from the talkpage. Although the heading "Requests for clarification" is not clear, this is the customary location for proposals of this nature. Newyorkbrad 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Today I blocked Rex Germanus for one month for disruption at ANI. [23] One September 30 he was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Rama ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 24 days for "WP:POINT, persistant conflictuabl edits, chronical failure to work for the project rather than use it for personal crusades" [24], but the block was lifted early on October 1 so Rex could participate at Community sanction noticeboard per an offer by Moreschi ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Rex came to ANI today and made frivolous accusations and refused to desist, in spite of the fact that Jossi ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) had previously warned him that any disruption after the unblock would lead to an immediate block. [25] Arnoutf ( talk · contribs) commented: "Agree with this block; any edits beyond his own defense (reason for restricted unblock) where a favour, Rex should have been careful not to abuse this leniency."

Rex Germanus' has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, POV pushing and disruption. [26] The community is thoroughly tired of these problems, and the opinions at the WP:ANI thread suggest that Rex has already been given many more chances than other editors who have been sitebanned. Rex has been blocked 9 times since he was put on probation.

Enough is enough. I request a siteban. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: Name of blocking admin corrected above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If the community is unwilling to impose a ban, the appropriate recourse would be to bring a new case before the Committee. I do not think that making a motion in a year-old case would be a suitable approach here. Kirill 03:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The community may be willing to impose a ban, but we wanted to bring this to your attention first. Rex is currently blocked for one month. If problems resume upon his return, he will most likely be indef blocked. That's where the discussion ended at ANI. Somebody asked me to bring this case to your attention, too, so I did. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As the closing clerk, I noticed some interesting problems with the remedy 1 of this case. The remedy 1 puts edit supervision on the editors sanctioned in the original case, however, at least 2 editors sanctioned in the original case was not named as a party to the newer case and was surprised/shocked of the development. I'd like some input from the Committee to explain the ruling on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 04:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.

The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. See below.

As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Wikipedia following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
          • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
            • "His non-inclusion was just a mistake" as in "Darn it, I forgot to add his name to the list"? If he (or any editor) was not on the list of involved parties in the second case, nor even told of its existence, then how can he be a party to the part 1 sanctions imposed in the second case? It is that simple, or wikipedia descends into a Kafka-esque justice system. Meowy 02:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is shocking that ANY editor can fall foul of these remedies without having any prior warning of their existence. If these restrictions are to be fair then there must be an earlier stage to the process where editors are first warned of the existance of these pre-existing remedies and that they run the risk of breaking then if they were to go about editing an entry that falls under those remedies in the same way as they would an "ordinary" entry. A warning should be placed on every wikipedia entry to which these draconian restrictions apply. Meowy 02:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First, TigranTheGreat was well aware of the second arbcom case, as he was providing evidence on other users, while others were providing evidence on him. [27] His non-inclusion was just a technical mistake. And I agree that some sort of warning would be good, but there are hundreds of articles covered by the remedy of arbcom 2, is it possible to add a warning to every one of them and who should do that? Grandmaster 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a "justice system". Basically, anybody who cannot behave or respect policy is out, justice or no justice. Nobody will be banned without warning, but, IMHO, there are topics that are so severely and systematically disrupted by ultra-nationalists, that need to impose "draconian" measures on misbehaviour by topic, not just by individual account (which are a dime a dozen), in the interest of maintaining a sane editing environment for serious editors. I have been saying this two years ago, and I am glad the arbcom is now seeing the need for this. dab (𒁳) 09:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Any editor who edits disruptively on this topic area may brought under the umbrella of this case by a notice on their talk page. A templated warning is available at {{ Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}} which explains the situation thoroughly. Rather than apply the notice to thousands of articles, this notice is given to the editors involved (so far 6 in addition to the editors involved in the case itself). If you are arguing for two separate warnings, (i.e., a warning about disruptive editing before the notice about being placed under the remedies can be given) that would be nice, and many admins will do that, but ArbCom didn't require it. Thatcher131 10:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note: The arbitrator motion relating to this issue (see below) has been pending for more than six weeks. Arbitrators are requested to cast votes so that the issue can be resolved. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Certain editors are currently going around Wikipedia removing citations to quackwatch per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee. Claiming that, for example, Quackwatch is an "an unreliable and partisan source". For example. Was it the intention of the arbitration committee to declare unequivocally that Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch were unreliable and partisan for articles on alternative medicine? This, to me, looks like Arbcom making a content decision if this is the case. ScienceApologist 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have observed the same. I do not believe this was the intention of the Arbcom ruling. I second SA's request for clarification since other editors seem to have a different opinion. Avb 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in that decision should be interpreted as a ban on the use of a particular source. The Committee does not rule on content, and findings of fact are generally limited in their applicability to the specific matter being considered in any case. Obviously there are a number of problematic aspects to the use of quackwatch as a source; but the final determination of whether it's suitable in a particular context must rest with the editors working on the article in question. Kirill 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So are we to understand that arbcomm did not declare quackwatch or Stephen Barrett an unreliable and partisan source? I just want it to be clear so that I can refer people to this comment when and if this claim is made in the future. ScienceApologist 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It was the opinion of the Committee, in the context of that particular case, that they were unreliable; but we do not have the authority to prohibit their use. The choice of sources for an article is a matter of editorial judgement. Kirill 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked some of the pages that link to Quackwatch and followed the links to see what was being cited. What I found were well-written essays debunking or explaining the topic with appropriate references of their own. However, in general, it would be better to cite Barrett's writings from books and book chapters he has authored or co-authored, because there is a presumption of editorial oversight that a personal web site does not have, and because many of the chapters may be peer-reviewed and/or edited by independent and respected authorities. (For example, he has a chapter in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, whose editors have very respectable presence in PubMed and Google Scholar.) This means replacing the immediacy and convenience of a web link with the increased reliability of a third-party published reference, but would be the best way to demonstrate Barrett's views on the topics in question. Thatcher131 15:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed several editors have commented that the Attack Sites arbcom case which just closed, essentially supercedes the MONGO case. One editor has gone as far as to state that the Attack Sites case findings and remedies now permit linking to the encyclopedia dramatica website. Miltopia, has stated "please update your jargon/update catch-phrases from the asinine MONGO decision in your brains accordingly.". Neil has stated that "your old ArbCom ruling, which has since been outmoded.". Dtobias has even gone so far as to state that the MONGO case is obsolete and outdated [28] and that ED is not "totally off-limits under all circumstances."...so the questions are...is the MONGO case superceded by the Attack Sites case, or do they compliment each other...or are they completely seperate?-- MONGO 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Over the last 4 days, MONGO has made 11 reverts to restore the BADSITES language and his arbitration case into WP:NPA. 4*3=12, so this is only 1 revert under a 3RR violation. This behavior has been going on for 4 days. MONGO is seeking clarification from ArbCom in order to sanction his edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat

Sorry you think that is the case, as it is not...didn't you just get through telling me to AGF...now I expect you do the same for me...who knows, maybe the MONGO case is null and void. That is why I asked arbcom for clarification.-- MONGO 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I echo the need for clarification, in no small part due to an administrator's stated intent to continue enforcing a rejected policy proposal [29]. Milto LOL pia 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In light of MONGO's stated adherence to the MONGO case: [30] [31], both in direct contradiction of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Guilt_by_association (though note that neither Schmucky nor I are active "there"). Please keep this in mind when considering the good faith of MONGO's request here. Milto LOL pia 07:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked for clarification here...if indeed, the MONGO case is now superceded by the Attack Sites case...I am sorry if I used some of your comments, but that was needed in order to demonstrate that, as I stated, many seem to believe that the MONGO case is essentially null and void.-- MONGO 07:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using my comments, I have a problem with you reverting me, your ENTIRE reason being that I'm an ED contributor, which isn't even true anymore for crying out loud! And then that's all you have to say on the talk as well. Milto LOL pia 07:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just asked you a simple question, and yes, I do believe that if an editor is an active partcipant in contributing to ED, and they are trying to remove language from the NPA policy which prohibits linking to that capricious website, then that is an issue with me, and should be for every editor that cares about protecting others from insidious harassment.-- MONGO 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made it clear to you several times, MONGO, that I have no desire to see that website linked anywhere. I'd revert war to remove sch a link to it if it weren't blacklisted. Further discussion about this is not helpful; perhaps can the committee plz clarify the MONGO ruling I linked to above? "Guilty by association"? Are contributors to a BADSITE free to be hounded and hassled as MONGO has done? If so, does this apply to only active contributors or anyone who has ever participated at such websites? Milto LOL pia 07:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The bigger issue is the probable COI...contributors to websites that harass our editors and want to deemphasize or even be able to link to these websites by making edits to a major policy page is a serious matter. Most importantly, I seek clarification that ED is indeed a "malicious site". [32]-- MONGO 07:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Red herring; no one is questioning that. I doubt it will happen but I'd like to request that arbcom make a motion to somehow restrict or sanction those who disrupt discussions by repeatedly, repeatedly, nauseatingly so, make bad faith references to former offsite activities by Wikipedians when it has been made abundantly clear that those activities have ceased. The lack of integrity shown by MONGO in his self-inflicted dealings with Schmucky, myself and I'm sure several others is personally appaling and has been a roadblock to productive discussion ever since the MONGO ruling. MONGO has turned every forum he can reach into a battleground against phantom harassment, dragging several good-standing Wikipedians into the dirt in the process, with the same sort of behavior discussed in the Seabchan (spelling?) case that led to his desysopping for failure to relate to other admins and the community in general on these issues. Victim of past harassment or not, this is disruptive and it needs to stop. Milto LOL pia 08:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at that capricious website, and you have made recent edits there...so cease telling everyone you are no longer active there when you still are. I can't control whether you do contribute there and certainly don't have any right to, but don't expect me to see your removal of links to the NPA policy which makes it clear we don't link to that website as not being a COI.-- MONGO 08:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(restore indent) As a participant observer, my take on the matter is that use of overly broad "attack sites" language in the MONGO decision lead to (or set conditions allowing for) the past year's many conflicts over the "BADSITES" proposal and "ATTACK SITES" language in NPA. As the recently closed Arb case was initiated on the very concept of "ATTACK SITES," as it was applied (or misapplied) to a diverse host of issues, it therefore has to supercede the prior MONGO decision so far as that concept, which the ArbCom invented, can be considered useful as support for any current points in policy and related discussions. Regards to all, — AL ^FOCUS! 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• More idiocy on all sides and the page is protected again, I see. As an observer of the Arbitration process I note first that the committee had plenty of chances to specifically repudiate their earlier ruling and did not do so. However, the following principles in the Attack Sites case also passed:
  • Linking to external sites which contain information harmful to another person so as to harass them is unacceptable.
  • Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. (Appears to restate the MONGO decision, by the way.)
  • The selection of appropriate external links for an article is a matter of sound editorial judgment.
  • WP:NPA is about conduct, not about content. Concepts that apply to user behavior have nothing to do with article content, regardless of the article subject matter. Article content should be determined in a disinterested editorial manner; applying community policies or guidelines not intended for article content, or allowing one's own opinions of, or experiences with, the subject of an article, to be a consideration, is inappropriate.

So, I don't really understand the dispute. WP:NPA does not apply to article space. In project space and talk pages, don't post links to sites for the intent or purpose of harassing, intimidating or embarassing other editors. Don't link to sites that are primarily or substantially devoted to harassment. Links in articles should be based on editorial content policies. I suggest that these points cover nearly every possible situation (provided editors are not arguing to make a point, or from a position of bad faith--desire to let more trolling on board, for example), and I'm perfectly happy to enforce these principles any time a problem is pointed out to me, regardless of edit warring over the written policy. Thatcher131 15:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of "remanded to the community" is unclear? The Committee has no desire to impose a policy regarding which links are permitted or not permitted; the community needs to come together and develop one on its own. Editors arguing over what sites may or may not be banned under some interpretation of the case decision are missing the point in a very big way. Kirill 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hum...so is the MONGO case null and void, or isn't it? Please look over the findings and remedies of that case if you get the time.-- MONGO 06:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand and concur with that. The primary issue to be clarified is whether the wording in the recent "Attack sites" case supercedes or renders null or obsolete the wording in the prior "MONGO" case, mainly as concerning the notion of "Attack sites," not whether certain links are still permissible or not. I know the Committee does not write policy, but its decisions are used to support policy points, so the clarification is needed. I respectfully second the request for clarification from members of the Committee.— AL ^FOCUS! 17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 says it well, I think. The specifics of ruling in the MONGO case applies to the MONGO case. The specifics of ruling in the Attack sites case applies to the Attack site case. I don't know how much clearer we can say it. As a general rule, per existing policy, if a site is being used for harassment, to bully, or embarass then the links should be removed as we have said in Principles of our the rulings. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That answers the question adequately for me, thank you. So my understanding of the matter is, the remedies and principles passed in the MONGO case were meant to specifically apply to ED, and still do. The BADSITES proposal, in all its incarnations including at NPA, attempted to use the "attack sites" abstraction to apply the specific remedies passed in the MONGO case against ED to off-site links to various critical sites across en.wiki. This obviously became disruptive, leading to the case specifically on the "Attack sites" concept, which encompassed a number of these instances. While the ArbCom did not revisit the specifics of the MONGO case, it did find that its rulings had been misapplied as policy: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites#Inappropriate_application_of_policy. While the principles between both cases to me seem consistent with each other, in this case the Arb Com did not recommend a specific set of remedies, such as 3RR exceptions, to be applied against ASM and like sites, instead remanding the matter to the community. So the final impression I take away from all this is that the MONGO case, while not rendered null and void in itself as concerning ED, should not and never should have been applied "across the board" to other sites automatically as policy, and with this ruling the ArbCom leaves it to the community to develop appropriate policies for the problem of links to off-site harassment.— AL ^FOCUS! 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to say it looks to me that that Arbcom doesn't create policies in general, and in the Attack Sites case in particular, Arbcom explicitly very much reiterated that it doesn't create policies. If we want to know what our policies towards BADSITES should be, we should be asking the community, not the committee. That's what _I_ think the attacksite ruling was basically trying to say, anyway. -- Alecmconroy 04:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

At [33] the text states that remedy 2 will apply to articles which relate to Armenian and Azerbaijan and related conflicts, i.e. conflicts which relate to Armenian and Azerbaijan.

However, the template that Seraphimblade has placed on my [ [34]] talk page has text which, in its scope, far exceeds what was decided in that remedy 2. Under the wording of the Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, articles conected to Turkey would only fall under that particular RfA remedy if the article was in some way related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. However, Seraphimblade has used the RfA remedy to apply to an edit I made in a talk page of the entry on [Occupation_of_Istanbul], a subject which is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Moreover, this remedy was not applied by Seraphimblade as a result of an edit made to an article but as a result of a comment on the article's talk page. Where did the template text applied by Seraphimblade come from? What discussion and voting preceeded its composition? Why is it connected to Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA given that it far wider in scope than the actual remedy 2 decided on in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA? I've asked Seraphimblade these questions a number of times but he has declined to give me an answer. Meowy 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I created the template in question to aid admins in enforcing the remedies in that case. The first remedy states "Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing 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 should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise." (emphasis added). The second remedy applies to editors "which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". (emphasis added) It doesn't make much sense for "related ethnic conflicts" to have two different meanings in the two remedies. Thatcher131 22:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What (on record) discussions did you have before drafting that template? You have seriously altered the meaning and scope of the "any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" part of remedy 2. You cannot use emphasis to change that meaning to support your re-writing of the remedy. It is quite clear from the wording of the remedy that the ethnic conflicts have to be in some way related to either (or both) Armenia and Azerbaijan. For example, an article about Azeri ethnicity is not directly connected to the country or territory of Azerbaijan, but it is related to Azerbaijan, so would fall under the remit of remedy 2, massacres of Armenians in the territory of the Ottoman empire are not directly connected to the country of Armenia, but is a related ethnic conflict, so would fall under the remit of remedy 2. An article which deals solely with Turkey does not fall under the remit of remedy 2.

You played no part in the discussions that took place at [ [35]], you were not one of the six who voted on the text for remedy 2, yet you have substantially altered (aparently arbitrarily) the text that those six agreed on, extending its scope beyond what was actually decided upon. If remedy 2 was intended to be the same as remedy 1 (as you seem to want to suggest), then why were two remedies proposed, and voted for separately, and given completely different remedies? Meowy 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As an Arbitration Clerk (at the time) I had reasonably broad discretion to interpret decisions. Of course, I am certainly willing to be corrected by the Arbitrators, if their view differs from mine. Thatcher131 16:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note, the template is {{ Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}}. I wrote it to help admins to enforce the remedies in that case by making it easy to apply a comprehensive notice that would avoid disputes about whether an editor was properly noticed to all elements of the remedy. Also note Meowy's comments such as [36] which prompted the application of the probation. Thatcher131 16:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have already contacted all six arbritrators, via their talk pages. Your insinuation that I am in some way trying to hide the existence of the comment I made here: [37] is completely unjustified. The whole point of initiating this request for clarification arose from an administrator notifying me that I would be subject to the RfA remedy because of that comment. I have been completely open about its existence, as you can see if you look at my talk-page discussion [38]. Regardless of whether you agree or do not agree with my comment on the Occupation of Istanbul talk page, it does not fall within the remit of remedy 2 because it is in the talk page of an article that is outside remedy 2's remit! This RfC concerns your apparent altering of the RfA remedy2 decision. Meowy 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We really screwed that one up, didn't we? Aside from the differently worded scopes, it appears that the original decision didn't have any probation remedies—the probation was part of the new decision—so that part of the new wording doesn't make any sense either.

Our intent, however, was to impose a remedy on the old participants, and to allow admins to impose the same remedy on any new parties that became involved. As such, the second remedy should be considered to apply to the same range of articles as the first one does. Kirill 04:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, you may claim "our intent", but the most you can say with certainty is "my intent". As proof, during the RfA, one of the arbitrators Jdforrester had said when voting that he was already "unhappy with the broadness of the overall case". You can't now claim you all wanted to make it even broader! The simple fact is that the remedy you, and your fellow arbitrators decided on and then voted for only said "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". You can't now change that remedy on the grounds that you actually wanted to vote for something different.

Are you seriously saying that that RfA remedy should be applied to, let's say, an entry about the Ottoman-Venetian naval battle at Lepanto, or an entry about the population of Germany if it mentions ethnic Turkish immigrants communities in Berlin, or even to some overly-heated talk page discussion about the football-playing abilities of Galatasaray over Fenerbace! How can you possibly justify such a thing when no such broadness in scope was suggested or implied during the RfA discussion. Meowy 18:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I must also note that Meowy’s block log shows that he has 2 blocks for 3RR violations and another 2 for harassment of other editors, [39] the last one dated 22 September 2007, i.e. after the end of the last arbcom case. I don’t think that the technical issues should be used as a pretext to avoid the application of arbcom remedies, while it is clear that the scope of arbitration was never limited to Armenia – Azerbaijan related articles and the title is misleading. Both arbcom cases covered the articles concerning wider region than those 2 countries. Grandmaster 06:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your position is understandable: someone who has already been hung several times under Armenia-Azerbaijan RfA1 and RfA2 has no incentive to oppose hanging, and someone who has no interest in accuracy has no inclination to oppose inacuracy. Meowy 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA. Whatever I said is an accurate info that can be verified by anyone. Claims that I have "no interest in accuracy" are not in line with the aforementioned policy. Grandmaster 07:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the way the particular Arbitration case's remedies are being implemented.

James F. (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a question regarding a detail from the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. It is a minor point, but I figured it would be better to put it here than on a talk page, where it might be overlooked. The arbitrators decided in the aforementioned case that I should be under a set of restrictions "until November 2007". No specific date was given, and as November 2007 is now nearly upon us, this detail has become significant. It could be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions end when we enter the month of November, or it could be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions end on Nov. 11, the second anniversary of the closing of the original case (pre-amendment). Naturally I prefer the first interpretation, and given the extraordinary duration of these restrictions I feel it would be more reasonable to end them on the earlier date, but I hope that the ArbCom will clarify this for me and determine which interpretation it considers more reasonable. Everyking 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to preface this by saying I do not feel EK has reformed, that he still repeats the same mistakes that led to his banning from the administrators' noticeboard and involuntary desysopping (that he gripes about others' administrative actions without doing a scintilla of work to educate himself on the situation), and that it's only a matter of time until the arbitration committee will have to deal with him again. With that said, (like all good computer engineers) I consider "until" to be exclusive of the termination condition. Therefore, I feel the correct interpretation would be that EK's restrictions should expire at the end of October. Raul654 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah. November 11th it is. The intent was clearly a one year extension. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do any other arbitrators have an opinion on this? I mean, if it's split, then it's effectively the later date, because I can't go out on a limb and try posting on AN and risk repercussions for that. Everyking 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

November 11 it is, then. Kirill 03:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this is the right place for such question. If not I appologize. As you may recall I am banned from article Palestinian Exodus by previous rulling from few years back and I have followed that ban. There is a new article Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus which I began to participate - mostly on talk (made 2 rather small edits to the article - this is the biggest one: [40]).

I have only now noticed that that article is actually a fork and refernced in Palestinian Exodus. If my ban apply to the new article as well I will of course stay away from it. please clarify.

I will stay away from the article from now until such clarification is provided. Thank You. Zeq 15:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq made 5 edits to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus after his suggestions on the Talk page were ignored. This is a clear violation of the intent of the ArbCom probation and further evidence that Zeq has little interest in adhering to Wikipedia policies or editing in good faith. I would recommend that Zeq's article ban be extended to all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as he has been causing disruption to these articles for two years now. For the record, I blocked Zeq for 24 hours due to this incident. Also, for the record, I have no involvement in any of the articles in question. Kaldari 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed some edit-warring at Arab citizens of Israel between Zeq and other users. Zeq has been responsive to my intervention (I reported the incident as 3RR, though it did not meet the technical requirements and Zeq himself did not violate 3RR). He communicated with me in a civil manner on my talk page about the reverts and his probation. He is also responding at the article Talk in what I would ordinarily interpret as a good faith discussion. Similarly, Zeq initially started editing (BRD) at Allegations of Israeli apartheid in a manner unsuited to such a volatile page. Since then, he seems to be engaged usefully in the Talk page discussion. Granted, I sense that he tends to promote a POV rather than work entirely thru a neutral viewpoint, but I must say that seems to be quite common for Israel-related topics. Though I don't know the history or severity of the case, I wonder if a topic ban would be hasty. In any case, perhaps you should look at his apparent responsiveness (with me) before deciding. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because POV-pushing is common on Israel-related topics does not mean it is to be tolerated or ignored. Yes, Zeq has learned how to edit within policy (most of the time, and only after severe and sustained efforts to rein him in). However, the extent to which he edits within policy is only just as much as is required to avoid sanctions. He is clearly here for one purpose only - to push his specific point of view. He has been doing this without rest for 2 years. If Zeq was content to channel his POV-pushing into adamant debate and discussion, I would say he's a great asset to Wikipedia. The fact that he edits tendentiously and disruptively, however, and has eaten up at least as much administrator time and effort as any of our worst trolls or vandals, convinces me that Wikipedia would be better off without him. Wikipedia is NOT a battleground. However, as long as Zeq and similar users are given free reign, it sure as hell looks like one. Kaldari 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Since User:Kaldari was kind enough to unblock me I just wanted to say that the facts - as he presented them above, as well as his descriptions of me as "POV pusher" are not true. As for the facts (number of edit, when did they occur) a simple review of the history files will show that the way he describe the issue is not what took place. I will save you the detail unless someone really care. I am not this monster some people try to paint me as. I am working on some of the most difficult articles in wikipedia, I am doing it under conditions of probation for two years and most of the time I only get into problems becausee people think that my probation give them the justification to ignore me (or revert me) and some admins who make the mistake and block me based on some misunderstanding. many of my blocks over the last two years have ended up in being unblocked once the facts cleared. maybe it is time to remove this probation all together or make sure there is policy which allow users under probation - who wish to edit within policy - to edit without the stigma of "probation". Zeq 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, sometimes even I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but when one stumbles across pages like User:Zeq/apartheid propeganda, it makes it a little difficult to see anything but "POV pushing" here. I realize it is an old userspace page, but it kinda makes it clear that you've got a particular axe to grind. Tarc 23:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarc, it is a priavte page created a year ago during the big "israeli apartheid" discussion. that is all. means nothing and never completed. don't make any concusions from half baked ideas. But it prooves my point: People go out of their way to find fault in what I do. I have forgot about this page and I don't know how you found it. Zeq 04:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Almost uninvolved editor - I don't expect to agree with anyone all the time, and I expect to disagree with some editors a lot. But I don't expect to have to question their judgement. Edits such as this, inserting this little essay on Arab citizens of Israel from User:Zeq are very worrying, and he's reinserted it once and then again only last week. The whole thing appears to be aimed at inciting hatred and fear - worse still, some of the references (eg this, the last one) are totally worthless and could never have said what is claimed of them. This topic, more than most, deserves integrity from the editors participating. PR ^talk 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Almost uninvolved editor part II - I find more disturbing insertions even in this same article. This edit here suggests that the "PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION has stated" certain things eg "There was no doubt that it had largely contributed to increasing the hostile feelings of the Arabs for the Jews.". But examining the actual report (not referenced, I've had to find it), it turns out this is not what the report has stated, it's what one witness, a "M. Van Rees" has put in his evidence. I've not removed this particular claim and sizable clip from the article so far, I've only provided one historians synopsis of the whole business, but it's quite worrying to discover that this kind of distortion is being inserted into articles. PR ^talk 21:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • A reply from Zeq to the so-called "Almost uninvolved editor: You are always welcome to disagree politly with my edit but stop doubting my intentions. Always WP:AGF. I am tired of people accusing me in things I did not do. The facts are clear: The refernced document [41]include a section from which I quoted excatly what is in the article. The source quotes page 31 of the Shaw report. That is what I said no more no less. PS an editor with the name "Palestine Rememebered" (which is also happnd to be a an advocay/propeganda web site can not claim that he is uninvolved in this issue. I wonder alos if your user name comply with Wikipedia policy. Zeq 10:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that the original remedy allows any admin to extend the ban to any other article, the question is somewhat moot. Any administrator (e.g. Kaldari) is empowered to ban you from the forked article regardless of whether or not it is considered to be equivalent to the original one. Kirill 04:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

makes perfect sense and simple. Thank You. I will stay away from that article although no formal ban has been issued by any admin as of now. Zeq 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That's common sense. Fred Bauder 11:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarify please: Is Kaldari extending the ban to Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus or (per K's recommendation above) to the entire Israeli-Palestinian topic? Kirill apparently refers to a single article. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's probation allows any admin to ban him from any article he disrupts. Zeq must be notified on his talk page and the ban must be logged here. No ban is currently logged. It is to everyone's benefit for admins enforcing such remedies to be as clear as possible to prevent misunderstandings, so you should ask Kaldari what his specific intent is and ask him to properly log it. Thatcher131 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute removed. Take it elsewhere. Are there further questions as to the application and enforcement of the probation? Thatcher131 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the committee had a role in the unblocking of TREYWiki, I would like to request input from the comittee on User:TREYWiki's usurpation request, which is here. It seems poor form to request renaming such a short time after being unblocked. Does the committee have any comment on this matter? Please note that should the renaming be carried out, the user would be blocked for one second to link their previous block log, as is customary, so that users cannot use the renaming process to evade their old block log. -- Deskana (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no particular problem with the renaming so long as the links to the block log are in place. Kirill 17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection from me, as the original blocking administrator. There's still going to be a such substantial link between both usernames, given their similarity, that it's not likely this rename is being done to try and hide past poor behaviour. I do realise there has been problems in the past with renames and usurpations being requested to try and hide past behaviour and in particular, to try and leave a block log behind without losing contributions, and thankfully the bureaucrats quickly noticed this and introduced the 1 second block with a summary linking to the previous block log. Nick 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/My_desysop_of_Zscout370 clearly displays that the community is still at odds over the recent Jimbo Wales drama and when an exhaustive discussion fails to produce a consensus, the issue is usually deferred to the ArbCom. I have not yet decided whether I am prepared to write up the case but the clarification from the committee is needed on the issue on which there is still no clarity.

Does the committee have a jurisdiction to review the actions of Jimbo Wales when such actions were done in the capacity of a Wikipedia user, that is an editor, an administrator or a steward?

Clearly, ArbCom has no jurisdiction upon Jimbo's actions made on behalf of the board but what about the rest?

What would be appreciated is a simple yes/no answer to this fairly general but important question. All caveats, including Jimbo's "special status", "special role" and the fact that he appoints the committee itself (at times not even consulting the community [42] ) are known. So, please let's not make this request another fork of the pretty heated board referenced above. TIA, -- Irpen 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Jimbo Wales's original delegation of authority to the Arbitration Committee in 2004 would have included jurisdiction for ArbCom to review Jimbo's own administrator/bureaucrat/steward actions is doubtful. After all, the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy provides that ArbCom decisions may be appealed to Jimbo Wales. However, in discussing a recent block, Jimbo posted earlier this week that "[o]ne of our oldest traditions, absolutely unquestioned across the entire history of Wikipedia, is that I have the right to ban users who violate our social norms. I am happy to review my own actions, and indeed happy to have them reviewed by the ArbCom, and of course as a matter of tradition equally as strong, I would defer to the ArbCom in any review of my own actions." (Emphasis added.) Thus, Jimbo has agreed that his decisions may be reviewed by the arbitrators. Whether to grant a review in a given instance, precisely what types of decisions are reviewable, and whether such reviews should be sought by filing a conventional request for arbitration or via a different procedure, would presumably be questions for the arbitrators to resolve. Newyorkbrad 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I love you but you are wasting your time here. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever going to change by challenging Jimbo. He is the "God king", or "King God" or whatever it is they say in Yankyland. He thought of the Wikipedia idea first so has the right to only speak to re-enforce his own view. In spite of this odd leadership the project survives mainly because of addiction of the hardcore content editors and a constant turnover of new editors. The nasty noncontributing little admins stay and procreate themselves because there is little other for them, with their limited capabilities, to do elsewhere. For the true editors by the time disillusionment sets in, addiction has usually caught them. So in spite of the leadership the content of Wikipedia continues to improve, and will continue to do so. If you can accept that life can become very much calmer if not - well the intelligent are welcome everywhere. Giano 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen, brother. -- !! ?? 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I know all that. But I wanted to hear the opinion of the arbs whether they accept the idea in principle that they may be tasked with the reviewing the actions of their benefactor.

Brad, thanks for your comment. I gather from it that in your opinion the committee has a jurisdiction of this narrow issue only. Of course it is always up to arbs whether to exercise such jurisdiction, but this is a separate matter. I hoped to hear from the arbs. -- Irpen 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Which case is this supposed to clarify? Charles Matthews 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I gather it is intended to seek clarification of the arbitration policy itself. (Perhaps the instruction at the top of this section—"Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section"—could itself use some clarification.) I can relocate this thread to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy if that would be a more suitable location for it. Newyorkbrad 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's own words quoted above, answer the question that was asked to be clarified, so in effect the power behind the board has answered. As for whether such a case should be brought, that's just silly unless someone can first come up with some very specific questions they feel need answering that have not been answered. I think the talk pages about this have clarified that Jimbo and the community sometimes don't speak the same language and that we all need to learn better how to minimize disruption. If anything is needed at this point with regard to all this, it's an effort by everyone to learn new skills at how to be less disruptive. WAS 4.250 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As a constitutional question (there's the Anglophile again) the Arbitration Committee can and has in the past reviewed actions undertaken by Jimbo, although usually at his request. For the committee to request that it review an action undertaken by him that he had not personally referred to the committee would be different in form but not substance. Mackensen (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo sent an email to wikien-l on 19th April 2007 saying:

Here, let me by decree in this very instant make the following binding

pledge upon myself:

In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any

decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the

ArbCom's decision shall be final.

*This* is a significant change to our policies.

--Jimbo

I think that answers this question quite conclusively. -- Tango 12:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Charles Matthews has hit the nail on the head in his question: Which case is this supposed to clarify? -- Tony Sidaway 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification do not have to refer to an individual existing arbitration case. This request presumably refers to a potential case regarding Jimbo's desysopping of Zscout370. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 19:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As a former arbitration clerk, I am not aware of any change in the status of this section from requests for clarifications of arbitration committee rulings, to general clarifications on policy (which the committee has been historically loth to do outside actual cases). When did this occur? -- Tony Sidaway 19:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's sort-of evolved that way. Raul654 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Presumably whenever the subtitle was changed to "on matters related to the Arbitration process". I suspect in reality the real question is whether it is something that has a prospect of occurring, rather than mere conjecture. David Mestel^{( Talk)} 19:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Let's not spend too much time on the location-of-the-thread type questions. As I said above, if an arbitrator believes this would belong better on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, I'll be happy to move it there. Also, regarding the substance of the inquiry, those interested should now refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales#Response for Jimbo's latest comments on this topic. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think it would be inappropriate, in view of the responses and views on the RFC, to take this to an arbitration request. -- Tony Sidaway 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, pretty much anything (within reason) can be the subject of an arbitration request. Whether or not to accept it is for the committee to decide... David Mestel^{( Talk)} 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been demonstrated that Jimbo's actions aren't default-accepted as being automatically on-the-button, and that when necessary the community will overturn the actions. It has also been demonstrated that Jimbo's actions are, 99% of the time, well thought-out and reasoned, and that should be respected. Nevertheless, whilst it's possible there has been a miscalculation in the decision-making that went on here on Jimbo's part, whether such a thing occurred is up to the Arbitrators, and that will be reflected in their decision to accept or reject. Anthøny 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Remedy 1.1 of the case calls for 3~5 administrators to serve as mentors... However, almost two months since the decision of the case, and no mentors have been chosen for the article. Could we do something about this? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who just began editing Great Irish Famine a few days ago and immediately ran into problems that the earlier case was meant to address, I'd like to second Penwhale's call for action. Dppowell 03:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mackensen made a request for volunteers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Great Irish Famine. Problem is finding volunteers 3-5. Maybe we can get the current election candidates to do it? Picaroon (t) 04:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be somewhat problematic, as the Arbitrators (which some of the candidates will presumably become) have traditionally avoided enforcing case decisions personally. I'd prefer to avoid setting up a situation where we'd need replacement mentors come January. Kirill 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed Mackensen offering to be a mentor, I personally think the mentors need to get cracking ASAP - the articles locked now and after scanning through it, there seems to be quite a bit of disruption on the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The committee has appointed Daniel ( talk · contribs), Ryan Postlethwaite ( talk · contribs), and Angusmclellan ( talk · contribs) as mentors to Great Irish Famine in fulfillment on Remedy 1.1. For the committee, Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked DreamGuy initially for one week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring. I am requesting a review of his sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of at the time. I recommend increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry. See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. In brief, DreamGuy appeared to be laying low during this case, but was actually editing with an IP sock puppet to avoid scrutiny. Just five days after the case closed, his sockpuppet was used for incivility and edit warring. I view this behavior as cynical manipulation that calls for stronger sanctions. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulties following Jehochman's exposition; i.e. links to more links to more links, etc. El_C 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that, with Jehochman's permission, I have lifted the block. See my unblock notice for detail. El_C 03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The editing restriction placed on DreamGuy applies to the person, not the account; if he's being incivil under another username, any admin is free to block him. I do not think there is any need for additional sanctions at this time. Kirill 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem experienced by Demcdevit and myself was to be shown evidence of any recent incivility as grounds for the block. El_C 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Kirill. That's helpful. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I urge the committee to investigate Jehochman's disturbingly uncommunicable conduct. El_C 06:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to submit a formal request for arbitration, you may do so further up the page. A request for clarification regarding an already-closed case is not an appropriate venue to consider the actions of an uninvolved editor. Kirill 06:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I've been left with no choice. El_C 07:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest a little patience, El C? Perhaps try to resolve this via some other means...I would be glad to mediate.-- MONGO 07:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the matter is now resolved. El_C 08:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad suggested this was the place to come for this problem.

In the RfA for Robert Prechter Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter I was banned from editing articles related to Prechter, essentially because I was putting "too much" negative information into a WP:BLP. I consider this ban a stain on my reputation. I think that subsequent events have shown that the decision was wrong, and I request that you review the ban.

In early August User:Rgfolsom quit editing Wikipedia following two major set-backs (for him not for Wikipedia). In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination) it was again decided that Socionomics be deleted (it was supposed to be put into a tempory redirect to Prechter and is still there.) Folsom offended many editors in that debate with his attack-dog style. As the closer said:

Discussion. — This is a very unwieldy discussion, so for the sake of efficiency I am simply discounting anything written by Rgfolsom (talk · contribs), who is being paid to promote and defend Robert Prechter's concept of "socionomics" and has a conflict of interest. As volunteer editors, we are simply not playing in the same league as he.

About the same time he fought unsucessfully to have the following deleted from the Prechter article:

In July 2007, the Hulbert Financial Digest, published by Dow Jones, reported that Elliott Wave International's Elliott Wave Financial Forecast had a 15-year annualized return of negative 25.4%/year and a return of negative 17.8% over the life of the newsletter.[17]

This is well documented, and other editors would simply not put up with his demands anymore. I think this is why he quit editing - everybody could easily see his bullying tactics, and the community would not let him use them anymore.

Since I was banned for putting too much weight on negative material, I think this fact needs to be considered (the negative 25.4% annual return over 15 years). When an investment advisor has a negative 25.4% annual return duing the biggest bull market in history, I don't see how the documented quotes from major news sources that I put in the article could be considered to be overly negative.

Combined with his attack-dog style which has offended just about everybody he's dealt with, I'd like you to reconsider the ban.

Sincerely,

Smallbones 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was partially involved during the mediation stage of this case. Rgfolsom was a most-disagreeable person to deal with via e-mail, and I think the restrictions on Smallbones were a bit too much. Personally, I would endorse a restoration of Smallbones' full editing rights. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]} 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Smallbones I think I understand your situation but I have two questions to be sure. Is the "negative" information stuff like: William Power (19 August 1993). "Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late". The Wall Street Journal. ? While "positive" information comes mostly from him or his company? If the answers to both questions are yes, IMHO you are actually abiding by WP:NPOV and shouldn't be punished just because the sources say what they do. (Sometimes sources have more negative things to say than positive). Anynobody 08:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. All the negative information was in the form of quotes, from the most reliable business press - e.g. the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, the Financial Times, Barron's. When I put 1 of these sources in the article, Folsom reverted it, when I put 2 in he reverted, 3 ..., 4.... Maybe when I put nine in, it was a bit of overkill. The "positive" sources, if I recall correctly, were exclusively from Folsom's boss Prechter. When I started editing the article, it was a copyright violation, taken directly from Prechter's website. Smallbones 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That, for lack of a better word, sucks. This is exactly the type of situation I thought WP:UNDUE was meant to address. (Certainly we can mention Prechter's belief in his system, but the bulk of our article should come from sources like Wall Street Journal, Fortune, the Financial Times, Barron's.

Banning people like you from editing a topic for citing reliable sources is a big mistake and I hope the arbcom will notice this oversight. Anynobody 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To prove my point, it looks like Smallbones was topic banned because his version seemed overly negative. However the "negativity" isn't a product of POV pushing on his/her part but simply what the sources say. The two versions given and their references:

Anynobody 02:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the 2 above editors for their support. Just to be clear, I'm not asking for the case to be be re-arbitrated (even though I disagree with the decision, and think that, in retrospect it should be clear to the arbitrators that the decision was wrong). All I am asking for is that the indefinite ban on me editing articles related to Robert Prechter should be lifted, because a) it's been 7 months and b) nobody seems to have any major disagreement anymore with the edits I made on the Prechter article. And please do remember, Prechter's advice costs his clients 25% of their investment every year (as measured by Hulbert Financial Digest). Do you really want Folsom/Prechter or that type of editor putting his adverts on Wikipedia again? Smallbones 02:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The Committee may find it useful to know that I have contacted ^demon by email about the above comment of his. I asked him why he characterized me as being "most-disagreeable" during the Socionomics mediation, but he has not replied. I am bewildered by what ^demon has said now, because my messages to him were civil and respectful; he even offered his help to me in filing the request I brought to this Committee (help which I accepted and found useful indeed). I do not know why ^demon has done this, but I can show that he is plainly mistaken in what he claims. I kept my entire email exchange with ^demon, and I am willing to make all those messages available to him and to the Committee for the asking. If necessary, I will provide Committee members with my gmail user name and password so that they can access my gmail account to verify the content of those emails, including the dates and time stamps.

As for Smallbones' request, I will only note that what he says now is more of what he said then to the Committee during the Arb case. This will be obvious enough to any Committee member who reviews the evidence, workshop, and unanimous vote from that case. Thank you.

-- Rgfolsom 18:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Smallbones has edited Elliott wave principle, an article related to Robert Prechter. This is a clear violation of the remedy from the arbitration case.

Rgfolsom 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have warned Smallbones that any further violations of the remedy will be met in blocks. In the future, please report violations at WP:AE. I'll archive this section tomorrow if no arbitrators show interest in modifying this remedy. Picaroon (t) 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The matter is being considered; we'll likely have an answer in the fairly near future. Kirill 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Committee does not wish to lift this sanction at the present time. Kirill 13:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to consider this. If anybody wants to explain why this decision was reached, I'd be pleased to see it; either here or on my talk page. Smallbones 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I need clarification on this instruction. My concern is that the other party has taken this instruction as a license to own articles; do I need to avoid any article he edits, and stop editing whatever articles I edit if he edits them too? As the arbitration came to a close he immediately went to one of the disputed pages and made the exact same changes that I and several other users had been protesting. Is this behavior considered reasonable, and am I expected to just ignore any page he chooses to edit? Or are his actions considered a violation of the spirit of this instruction? csloat 04:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom instruction was that we are "instructed to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way." But we might need a formal practical rule on that. So I proposed the following: "I will not edit any articles where you made any edits before me, however minor these edits might be; and you promise do the same with regard to articles I have ever edited." [43]. Is that reasonable? So far I followed exactly this rule. It is easy to see who of us edited an article first. We are both treated equally. This has nothing to do with own, since all remaining WP users are very welcome to edit any article in question. It is not possible to edit the same article without communication. Biophys 20:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not believe that is reasonable; it smacks of ownership of articles. Especially when one party to the arbitration has immediately taken the close of arbitration as a license to return to the extremely objectionable behavior of the recent past. I would like an arbitrator's view on the matter. (I would also like clarification on whether even this particular interaction violates the instruction; I don't think so but it is vague enough that it might). csloat 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I only said that I am not going to follow edits of another user (as ArbCom requested) and asked for the same in return. If that is not reasonable, some clarification may indeed be needed. Biophys 22:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What Biophys proposes is reasonable; neither one of you should edit an article the other is already engaged in editing. Splitting the articles formerly in conflict is somewhat arbitrary. If you guys can live with dividing them by which of you edited them first, that's fine. The alternative—which I suspect will be less to your liking—will be to restrict both of you from editing any article you've been in conflict over in the past (as was done in the WLU-Mystar case). Kirill 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the only articles where there was a significant problem were Communist terrorism and Operation Sarindar -- I would be ok with the solution that neither of us edits those two articles. csloat 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The list of articles that we edited both is much longer, including Criticism of Bill O'Reilly, Intelligence Summit, California in focus, and others. So, let's follow the official ArbCom decision as clarified by Kirill. We do not need ArbCom sanctions as in WLU-Mystar case. Biophys 17:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are simply articles you stalked me to -- none of them were articles were we had actual substantive conflicts. I am asking for clarification of the arbitration decision; I think for the two articles named a better solution will be necessary as I have significant substantive problems with your use of original research on them. csloat 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that we had a conflict in all articles that we both edited, and there are too many of them. So let's follow good advice by Kirill. Biophys 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No; we had no substantive conflict over the other articles. The substantive conflicts were over those two articles and I will agree to leave them alone if you agree to the same. But I do not think it is a good idea to say that you "own" those two articles. csloat 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I submitted evidence in this case. Upon resolution, Biophys proceeded to undo all of my contributions to Operation Sarindar. We will hear no more of this, should both parties refrain from editing said two pages. Something, obviously, not for me to decide. smb 21:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding all article where they have both made significant contributions in the past sounds like the best solution to me. Divvying up mutually-edited articles based on who edited first isn't an optimal solution in my opinion. Picaroon (t) 23:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean a "significant contribution"? Are we going to dispute here our contributions to all articles? We need a formal and simple criterion. There are only two simple options. Option 1: we divide all articles that we both edited, as has been suggested above (note that we both are treated equally). This option is consistent with current ArbCom decision, as clear from the statement by Kirill. Option 2: we do not edit any articles that we both previously edited, however all our newly edited articles would still be divided according to Option 1. Then a new decision by ArbCom is needed, and we do not want that. Biophys 17:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The "significant contribution" standard seems clear enough to me. My interpretation of this would be any article in which both of us took a stake in the outcome, which can be determined by looking at edits. If you or I just came there to revert the other one a couple of times and didn't participate in talk, it would not be considered a significant contribution. But if we both made substantive changes to the article and participated in talk, it would be considered a significant contribution. This is an easily enforced standard, and we can clear it up right here. In my observation, the only articles where there is that much overlap is the Communist terrorism article and the Operation Sarindar article (which you have again changed the name of). I don't think you could make that case for any other article. csloat 21:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Biophys wrote: There are only two simple options. Fallacy of the excluded middle. Biophys and csloat can refrain from editing any article the other has made significant contributions to while at the same time both avoiding the two problematic pages that brought us here. Namely, Operation Sarindar and Communist terrorism. Fair and simple. There is no contradiction here at all. smb 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are two options noted by ArbCom member Kirill, and I agree with him. Biophys 22:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually those are two that you made up, which are different from what Kirill suggested. One of Kirill's options is the option I have advocated here. csloat 22:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Then let's move by little steps. Do you agree not to edit any articles that I have edited after this ArbCom decision and will edit in the future? I can promise you the same if you agree. Biophys 06:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't think such an arrangement is appropriate - the issue is the articles we've edited in the past where we actually had conflicts; arbitrary restrictions based on any edits in the future are useless here. And I'd rather not give each party an incentive to make meaningless edits on as many pages as possible to drive the other editor off pages. Perhaps if we simply agree to interact civilly with each other when we have to do so, we can avoid such arbitrary restrictions. If you are willing to do so I will certainly agree to that. The point is to actually address and resolve conflicts, not to draw arbitrary boundaries around them. csloat 08:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What you suggested would be a reasonable solution in the past. But right now we have ArbCom instruction to avoid each other, and we must follow that instruction. Not only you refused to stop following my edits in the past, but you just refused to stop following my edits made after this ArbCom decision, and instead suggested to single out several articles based on your choice. Biophys 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This back-and-forth between the two of you is ridiculous. The arbitrators reviewed the evidence of prior hostility between you and could have imposed substantial restrictions on both of your editing. Instead, they decided that fortunately, things were not so bad as in other cases that come before them and settled for asking you to avoid each other and stay out of each other's way. There is no reason why with a modicum of good faith, the two of you could not accomplish that. Instead, you are here practically begging the committee to impose much stronger sanctions against each of you. I suggest that you both stop this nonsense right now. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for that. I agree to stop immediately, to consider this matter resolved, and to follow exactly the ArbCom instruction as clarified by Kirill. The instruction was "to refrain from interacting with or commenting about each other in any way". In particular, I am not going to edit any articles that have been created or edited by another side before me. I hope that will be enough to avoid any interaction. Biophys 20:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is that the arbcom decision was never clarified on this point. I have no desire whatsoever to further interact with the other party and don't plan to, but I also don't plan to avoid articles just because the other party demands that I stay away from them. Another important problem is that the arbcom decision did not address the other party's tendency to own articles, an issue I expect to see brought to admins' attention again in the very near future. csloat 15:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The remedy states that Eyrian's account is banned. However, FloNight states that this applies to the actual person, and not just the user themselves. Is FloNight's remedy the official one, and if so, how are we going to determine if someone is a sock of the Eyrian account holder, as well as deal with them? Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This case is still pending and so this question really belongs on its proposed decision talkpage, but since it's here I can answer briefly. Subject to correction from an arbitrator, I think FloNight's comment simply made express something that would have been understood anyway. In no case is it permissible for a user banned by ArbCom as Username1 to start up anew under Username2. (That is a different situation from where the problem is with the username only, or where the committee says the person can continue editing but under only one account.) The procedure if the person were to return prematurely would be the same as for any other sock of a banned user. Note, though, that under the proposed decision, the duration of the remedy is flexible in this case. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what Newyorkbrad stated, this case is currently open and voting is in progress, and as such the Ban is not considered to be in place yet. Anthøny 16:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

NYB is correct; FloNight just stated explicitly something that is normally assumed to be understood. Kirill 16:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I request that the Committee enact a motion expanding the enforceable remedies in the Dalmatia case. While Giovanni Giove has continued to edit aggressively, he is not alone. Raguseo ( talk · contribs) and Aradic-en ( talk · contribs) are both relatively new accounts that edit solely on this topic and advance the same Croatian Nationalist POV. In addition, Raguseo has been abusing sockpuppets. Ghepeu ( talk · contribs) (Italian side) and Kubura ( talk · contribs) (Croatian side), while more experienced editors, have also participated in aggressive biased editing, although to a lesser degree that Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR. DIREKTOR communicates extensively with Kubura and to a lesser degree with these other editors, frequently in Croatian [44] [45] [46] [47].

I request these additional remedies, patterned on RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2:

1. Any editor who edits articles related to Dalmatia (broadly construed to include ethnic and nationalist disputes between Italy and Croatia) in an aggressive biased manner may be placed on Supervised Editing and Revert Limitation by any uninvolved administrator. Editors under revert limitation are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and must discuss all reversions on the talk page. Editors on supervised editing may be banned from any or all articles relating to Dalmatia (as above) for aggressive biased editing or incivility. Violations may be enforced by blocks as described. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.

Thatcher131 01:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hold off acting on this for a bit; the current Macedonia case may wind up resulting in restrictions of some sort imposed over the entirety of Balkan topics, which would supersede anything imposed here. Kirill 02:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you'll patrol WP:AE for me, right? Dalmatia topics are going to get messy if Ragueso, Aradic-en, Kubura and Ghepeu are left unencumbered. Thatcher131 03:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Further note, Ragueso and Aradic-en 's first edits are just days before the Dalmatia case was accepted, so they missed the case by being too new at the time it was filed. Thatcher131 03:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell, Direktor's information has been right. I provided Giove with a link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and he continued in his POV pushing. Only Giove needs to be punished in this matter, I think.-- Gp75motorsports ( talk) 12:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

On November 11, the main elements of the ruling Everyking 3, first imposed two years prior, expired. However, an AN discussion followed in which two arbitrators (Raul654 and Jpgordon) denied that some elements of the ruling had expired (remedies 5 and "X"), on the basis that those elements were not listed by name as expiring this November in the amended ruling of July 2006. However, I think that, because the amended ruling says that my previous restrictions (those imposed in November 2005) expire in November 2007, this logically must include everything that was imposed in November 2005, because it did not provide for any exceptions.

(The following, which could be interpreted as a violation of one of the prohibitions claimed to still be in effect, was approved for posting on WP:RFAR by Raul654.)

One of the prohibitions which I believe should now be considered expired deals with a certain user with whom I had a series of disagreements in 2005. This user has now left Wikipedia, with a parting message that gives every impression of finality. The practical reason I have sought to have my restrictions removed is not that I want to do the things they prohibit me from doing, but that the restrictions serve as a kind of "scarlet letter", and a case where I am prohibited from discussing or interacting with a user who has left Wikipedia is a perfect example of this: no benefit can come to that user from my restriction, since he has left, but I continue to suffer from the stigma of having that restriction formally applied to me.

I request, therefore, that the ArbCom determine whether the restrictions in question should be considered to have expired or to remain in effect, and if the answer to that is the latter, then I request that the ArbCom lift the restriction described in the previous paragraph. Everyking ( talk) 02:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• (a) The user EK is referring to is Phil Sandifer. (b) Reject, because EK - against my advice - made this request prematurely and now it appears it was filed in error because Phil has not left. Raul654 ( talk) 05:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it appears he has decided to come back. Nevertheless, there are issues to look at here. Everyking ( talk) 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Can the Arbitration committee please clarify their position on the application of these policies. There seems to be notable general feeling that past rulings by the committee have set precedent that 'Standing', ie history of contributions and administrative work, can be used as mitigation for incivil behavior and personal attacks against other editors. Specifically, I ask if 'Standing' can be used as defense even if past history indicates the editor will continue to make personal attacks and other disruptive incivility, something that policy indicates should result in preventative block. -- Barberio ( talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Standing" should obviously have no effect on findings of fact. Our custom is to allow standing to affect any remedy. If "remedy" is taken literally - the AC actually does try to fix up situations - it should be clear why that is. The process is not punitive, but has regard to the work going on daily on the site. Analogy with criminal proceedings can mislead. If you are asking whether the AC should apply remedies it knows in advance are likely to fail, the answer is "no"; though of course we are allowed to take a more optimistic view than self-appointed prosecutors. And mixing in policy is an odd thing here; certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin, quite independent of what the AC says. But it is true that an AC case ought to be considered to have 'dealt with' past history, given in evidence. After all, blocking productive editors is a loss to the project. Generally it is not that helpful if ancient incidents are brought up against people. Charles Matthews ( talk) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, however I'm not sure you clarified the point I was asking about. I find your statement that "certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin" very confusing.

You also seem to contradict the policy by saying past history of personal attacks should not be considered. To quote WP:NPA : "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered 'disruption'. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." This seems to me clear indication that someone with an obvious past history of personal attacks, who makes no effort or only token efforts to reform, and continues to make personal attacks may be blocked as a preventative measure regardless of their 'standing'.

I'm not entirely sure if you are saying that an editor who habitually makes personal attacks, and thus could be preventively blocked, can be a productive editor. It would seem to me that such an editor is being counter-productive. -- Barberio ( talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement about admins is consistent with what you quoted from policy, no? "Recurring" needs sensible interpretation; once a week, yes, if you go back six months, no. Admins do have some discretion here; blocks for disruption are always in some measure judgement calls. You asked how the AC sees it, and I am of course speaking for myself here. But the AC tends to work from principles, not detailed policy wording (which is always very much subject to mission creep). "Preventive" blocking; I think we'd not be happy to see indefinite blocks, but "cooling off" blocks are within admin discretion, assuming they are proportionate to the situation. On your last point, it seems clear that some productive editors do also indulge in personal attacks. There is no "entitlement"; what actually happens is that the AC is only happy to take cases on this alone (loudmouth stuff) when there is something fairly definite to point to. One final point is that civility paroles are a standard remedy, which the AC will use in cases (and if we don't, it is some indication). Charles Matthews ( talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This raises the question of someone who after being warned about Personal Attacks, 'cleans up their act' for six months, but then reverts back to making personal attacks with signs they will continue. By your standard, we should not consider their history as it's 'the far past'. It is notable that application of 'civility parole' could lead to cases of this type arising where the editor returns to bad behavior some time after the period of parole is over.

This is explicitly not the standard that is applied to other cases of disruptive behavior such as edit waring. In those cases past history has been considered when an editor reverts to that behavior and appears ready to continue doing so. I'm confused as to why you feel this should not be applied to NPA and civility?

I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with you on your point that 'productive editors' may engage in personal attacks. By definition, productive editors are those who make contributions to the project. Making personal attacks significantly and strongly detracts from the project. Editors who are making personal attacks are not productive members of the project, and shouldn't be treated as if they are. A plumber who unclogs my toilet, repairs my shower, fixes my sink, then smashes all my windows; was not being productive. -- Barberio ( talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's anyway not what I said. I said there is no entitlement to be incivil, whatever an editor's contribution. And you were asking about the AC's collective view, which I have tried to explain. Personally I'm a hawk on incivility - I always vote for civility parole remedies, as you could see from my voting record. I would answer your point by saying simply that the AC's real expertise is in the field of editor behaviour. We are expected to take everything into account, case-by-case. Your hypothetical plumber would be a vandalism case, not an incivility case. We are expected to place decisions in some sort of framework. That's what the principles are for. There are some relevant principles, but not what you are saying. Charles Matthews ( talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to restate, or link to, those principles you feel express the opinion of the ArbCom on this issue? -- Barberio ( talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Charles, I just read what you wrote above about "cooling off" blocks. My thought was that this had generally been regarded as an unhelpful thing to do. Blocks tend to generate heat, not coolness, especially when the person being issued a "cooling off" block is already quite angry. I believe I've seen users blocked for being irritible come back enraged after the block expires. IronDuke 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been contacted by User:Certified.Gangsta, who left the project in June 2007 in consequence of the sanctions imposed on him in the Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram RFAR. He was finding it impossible to edit under them, and was feeling very frustrated. User:Ideogram is now under a community ban, where he was found to have baited Certified.Gangsta and attempted to drive him off the project (successfully). CG is thinking about returning, and wonders if he might possibly have his editing restrictions revoked, despite the infractions he has indeed committed. Would the arbitrators like to take a look at this case, please? To remind you of how it went, I've written up a short overview of the circumstances here. Other users should feel free to add their views of the matter at that subpage, or at this notification, whichever works. Bishonen | talk 09:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

The Committee is discussing this matter. Kirill 13:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Bishonen | talk 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

Comment. I would not personally recommend a lifting of the restriction, since Ideogram was not the only editor that encountered his edit warring and I fail to see a pressing need in the absence of his primary antagonist. Giving such a user the extra wiggle room of two to three non-vandalism reverts seems like a poor idea for an established edit warrior. However, I would not be opposed to the editing restrictions being lifted, since the community tends to take a dim view of continued nonsense from editors with a problematic history. If CG were to relapse towards poor behaviour, I'm fairly confidant it would be handled quite quickly without kid gloves. I doubt great harm would result from allowing him the chance to participate in Wikipedia productively without editing restrictions. Additionally, the endorsement of Bishonen and Jehochman for the lifting of restrictions is a strong point in its favour. A bit of thought on both sides of the coin. *hands out grains of salt* Vassyana 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Disclosure: I was the blocking sysop for the most recent parole violation.

Thank you, Vassyana. Some recent developments: in his edits of today, November 10, Certified.Gangsta points (on request) to his positive contributions to the project. [48]. Please note especially his appeal here, and the new section "Contribution" on his talkpage, which he's in the process of adding to. Bishonen | talk 12:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).

The Committee has decided to lift the editing restriction on Certified.Gangsta. Kirill 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have notified the user, here, and posted on WP:AN — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you arbCom.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 21:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted on the case page, and I'll archive this discussion to the case talkpage in 24 hours. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On October 31st User:TruthCrusader was indefinitely blocked for off-wiki harassment of User:Calton. TruthCrusader maintains that he did not make the off-wiki postings he was blocked for and requested that the blocking admin, User:Jpgordon, provide evidence justifying the block. Jpgordon declined to discuss the matter on the grounds that reviewing the material would further aggravate the harassment by making the attacks known to a wider population. The suggestion was made that only ArbCom should review the evidence because of its inflammatory nature and TruthCrusader thus submitted the matter to ArbCom for review. TruthCrusader states that no response has been forthcoming to date.

Generally, I think the less which is done 'behind closed doors' the better. Making the evidence publicly available exposes it to additional eyes who may see things that a handful of arbitrators do not and thus actually prove the truth of the matter one way or the other. We've recently seen how that works in the !! case. We should only be invoking 'secrecy' in the most extreme of cases where personally identifying information, legal complications, or the like are involved... and then only for the smallest portion of those cases which actually must be kept from the public.

Regardless, it has been a past axiom of ArbCom cases (and common sense) that admins must be prepared to explain and justify their actions. If Jpgordon will not publicly discuss how he determined that TruthCrusader was behind the off-wiki actions attributed to him then at the least we need to hear from ArbCom that they have reviewed the matter. As it stands we've got a user blocked for nearly a month for actions he allegedly committed off-wiki. If he is or may be innocent that's unacceptable. If he is guilty then it is well past time to say so and close this matter out. -- CBD 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting a review on my placement under supervision by User:Ryan Postlethwaite for the following reason. The AA2 remedy #2 states: "Any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions." Ryan Postletwaite claims that "Although I don't see any incivility, the scope of the remedy was supposed to cover disruption via incivility or edit warring". I don't see the word OR, which Ryan felt so strong about that he made it appear bold.

This is what Thatcher131 told me month ago: "So far, no admin including myself has found that you yourself have edited these articles in an "aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility" and so you have not yet been placed under the restrictions described here. Thatcher131 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)" [49]

Am I being compared to E104421 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Previously indef banned for edit warring, who was simultaneously edit warring with me and another user [50], [51], [52], . Who breached WP:3RR [53], [54], [55], [56], Who kept insisting (by reverting) that its gonna be his way and no other? even by reverting my minor edits [57]. Who generally disregarded the talkpage and is yet to give justification for most of his POV reverts. Was I wrong, when I tried to compromise and only reverted partially? Was I wrong when I tried to keep the article as neutral as possible? As I said before, even though I was not under the restriction and supervised editing, I never reverted without justification, always explained and justified my edits in the talkpage. Most importantly my edits were not marked by incivility.

In fear of turning this board into another "he said she said" I request that only administrators respond to this request. VartanM ( talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration remedies are not meant to be carte blanche for administrators unless they explicitly provide for such authority. Ryan's interpretation of the decision here is incorrect; the remedy is applicable only to cases where the editor is incivil. Kirill 05:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How about many other users, such as User:Aynabend and User:Baku87, who were placed on parole without any prior warning, while they both had a clean block log and never made any incivil comments? I don't think E104421 was incivil either. Both VartanM and E104421 were placed on parole for edit warring on Shusha article, since they made 3rvs each. VartanM had a previous official warning from another admin to stop edit warring, otherwise he would be placed on parole [58]. So I think we need a clarification here. Can admins place users on parole for just edit warring, or they need to be engaged in both edit warring and incivility to be placed on parole? If the latter, then parole of some users has to be lifted. Grandmaster ( talk) 07:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Krill for a super fast reply. Grandmaster the answer to your question is most probably that they need to personally come here and make their case. Assuming good faith on GM's part for ignoring my kind request. Good night to all. VartanM ( talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to clarify the general principle of application of this remedy. If it applies only for incivilty, then User:E104421, User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 should be all relieved of it, since they never violated any civility rules, and the latter 2 editors have no previous blocks, warnings, etc, unlike User:VartanM. Grandmaster ( talk) 09:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, User:VartanM is violating Users national background and neutrality principle by engaging in edit warring and POV pushing across several articles without restriction. We are yet to see how you address that by giving him a green light to continue doing what he is doing. And if VartanM's behavior was not marked by incivility, then how did the ArbCom address these [59], several counts of incivility not ever supervised, restricted or paroled? And if the VartanM's continuous editing conduct allows for interpretation against supervised editing, then how would supervised editing apply in case of the other user User:E104421, whose edits were not incivil. Based on POV pushed by User:VartanM throughout Wikipedia without any review or restriction, and paroles being deliberately applied only to contributors of certain one side, lifting the supervised editing is a delibreate violation of neutrality. Atabek ( talk) 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And why does VartanM cross out administrator's decision [60] when this should be done either by administrator or arbitrator? Atabek ( talk) 09:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• The ArbCom notice reads: "Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page." I edited the Shusha article for the first time yesterday. I did not edited in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. I provided sources, cited the references, commented on the talk pages and edit summaries. On the other hand, VartanM deleted the new section, references and quotatins on "cultural life" added by myself from cited references. VartanM's POV is focused on my previous block-log due to my long term conflicts with Tajik on Nomadic Empires related topics. My last block is dated 1 April 2007. That case was closed. I edited for the first time an Az-Ar related topic in my life (just 4 times + 1 minor spell check), but it's claimed that i have history of Az-Ar related topics. Now, i was placed under the parole, but VartanM's parole is removed. What kind of double standard is this? Deletion of referenced material constantly is not regarded as edit-warring, but addition of "new section and references" are claimed to be edit-warring. What happened to the basic Wikipedia policies: " WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:DR"? Regards. E104421 ( talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks Kiril for the response here. I was under the impression that this remedy tried to stop disruption in all forms (i.e. edit warring or incivility) due to the history of editing on these pages. Whilst I see that both users here have edit warred on the pages, I fail to see any incivility coming from them, so unless there's evidence of that, I'll remove both names from the supervised editing log. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Both User:Aynabend and User:Baku87 were placed under the same parole for a single page edit and without any incivility cited. So please, review their paroles as well. Thanks. Atabek ( talk) 11:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Baku87 and VartanM for now - I'll wait for a response from the administrators that put E104421 and Aynabend under supervised editing before removing their names. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ryan. Atabek ( talk) 12:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, if I get this right, the remedy implies that the editors are free to edit war on topic related articles as long as they remain civil? If not, what the arbcom remedy proposes to stop edit wars, which were the reason to 2 arbcom cases in the first place? Thanks. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I share a similar concern with this remedy. Given the scale of the disruption on this topic, I don't think it's a good idea that users must be incivil with edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive on its own and this does seem to advocate edit warring on the pages provided that the users remain civil. I think when a case like this goes to arbitration twice, administrators should be given a little bit more freedom to interpret decisions because per the clarification from Kirill yesterday, I've had to remove five names from the supervised editing list that should all most probably have had their editing placed under supervision, but can't because of a technicality. In many ways it seems it's a way to game the system. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Last month I requested a RfC on the apparent arbitrary extensions of the powers that the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy created. Being out of the country for 4 weeks, I did not have the opportunity to see its result. Where (if anywhere?) would the archive of that discussion material be stored? I must point out to the initiator of this RfC, that remedy 2 does not actually contain the words he has quoted. The fact that it does not, was the crux of my RfC. Meowy 18:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I recall that one of the arbitrators said that he was happy with the way the remedy was enforced, and that was after a number of editors were placed on parole for edit warring and sockpuppetry. [61] Grandmaster ( talk) 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but they aren't the ones that have to deal with the situation day in, day out, and might not be fully aware as to the extent of the problems on these pages. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And the other 5 arbitrators didn't even bother to respond? Astonishing, especially since I personally asked each of them to do so and also pointed out in some detail the flaws in both the use and scope of the RfA remedy. I am seriously considering making a RfA on the validity of the mess that is the Armenian-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy. Meowy 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There was another prior discussion here: [62], and I might be wrong, but the remedy seemed to be interpreted differently at the time. Grandmaster ( talk) 13:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for this initative. I indeed have no problem in coming ahead, stating and being very proud that I have never used any incivility in my communications neither in this page nor somewhere else, and would highly appreciate if this injustice be corrected. Thanks again -- Aynabend ( talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like nobody is going to comment. But I would be really interested to know the opinion of the arbitrators about how the remedies passed under the second Armenia – Azerbaijan arbcom are supposed to stop disruption on topic related articles, if they limit the application of the remedy 2 to incivility only, while disruption on topic related articles was never limited to incivility? The Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case specifically mentions among the principles that edit warring, disruptive editing and sockpuppet abuse are considered harmful, but now it turns out that the editors placed on parole for those specific abuses should be relieved of their parole, because the remedy in fact provides for only one specific form of disruption. It seems like Armenia – Azerbaijan 2 case might not be the last one. It would be nice to get additional comments from the arbitrators with regard to how this remedy is supposed to stop disruption by new users, not restricted by any measures from the 1st case, and who are now free to edit disruptively as long as they remain civil? Thanks in advance for any comment. Grandmaster 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

An update on the present situation. Since the time a number of editors were removed from the list of users placed on parole, 2 pages got protected due to edit wars, in which those users took an active part. Those articles are Shusha and Armenian-Tatar massacres 1905-1907‎. There are other articles (such as Shusha pogrom (1920)) heading the same way. Note that since the end of the last arbcom case no pages have been protected until now. The activity of User:Andranikpasha I believe deserves special attention. Grandmaster ( talk) 13:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Grandmaster's "name-dropping" abuse know no end? This editor arbritrarily added the names of numerous other editors to the Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA after his own name was added, probably with the knowledge and expectation that ignorant administrators would convict said editors for no other reason that that their names were there and were thus "involved parties" and guilty by association. I would also like to get a response from some administrators about how easy it is for an editor to involve other editors in disputes and blacken their names by doing nothing more than placing their names in a RfA page. Grandmaster placed my name in the A-A2 RfA and for that reason alone I became an "involved party". Even though the text advised "do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case" and I did not edit it, Seraphimblade later justified his threat of imposing editing restrictions on me by accusing me of being "a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2". Meowy 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand this. You were involved in editing the region related articles, got 3RR block for edit warring on Church of Kish, why do you believe should not have been a party to this case? Also, you don't have to be a party to a particular case to be placed on parole, the remedy says "any editor" can be placed on parole for a certain offense. And if anyone is interested why a particular name is mentioned, I can provide more details. Grandmaster ( talk) 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we all know by now that you have a long list containing all the names and details of your Wikipedia "enemies". Meowy 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF? Grandmaster ( talk) 08:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you? when you added him to the involved parties. It's no secret that Meowy was added because you had a disagreement with him. VartanM ( talk) 09:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF again? I added him because he was engaged in disruptive editing. And I have absolutely nothing to do with Meowy being placed on parole, he was paroled for repeated incivility, covered by the remedy. I was not involved in that in any form. Please stop these bad faith accusations. Grandmaster ( talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing? The only article which he edited that had anything to do with the conflict was the Church of Kish when you added him. Assuming good faith? What about your finding of fact on him which was amounting to propose his banning? For what? Because of one single article. I reiterate my previous above comment and will stop answering, I am not interested into another who will have the last word match. VartanM ( talk) 22:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither am I. It is enough to check Meowy's block log, no comment is necessary. Grandmaster ( talk) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Enforcement Log
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Enforcement Log

There seems to be a decent amount of activity. For the sake of convenience the logs of these two cases should be somehow merged, perhaps templatified so that same log is visible on both pages and when a new entry is added it shows on both pages. This is trivially easy to do. {{ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Enforcement Log}} can be created and transcluded on both pages for this task.

-- Cat ^chi? 12:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have created the sub page per WP:BOLD. I have not transcluded it yet tho (I am not THAT bold). I'd like to do so per some sort of approval. -- Cat ^chi? 06:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"For the sake of conveniece" Do you mean for your convenience? If so,why would it be convenient for you, and why should your convenience be a reason to merge two separate and extremely controversial RfC records? Meowy 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? My convenience? I am neither an admin nor an involved party. How does this make it "more convenient" for me? These are two closely RfAr cases and not RfCs at all. The record in question are copies of block logs. Same information is available in the form of block logs. Merge suggestion was to simplify an already complex case with a centralized list as both cases are very closely related. Frankly this opposition baffled me. Yes I am quite surprised. -- Cat ^chi? 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how it would be "more convenient" for you. You made the "convenience" comment, so you are the one who should know! The case is complex because the second RfA case was exceptional in its outcome, especially in its draconian powers and in (what I believe to be) the unparallelled breadth of its scope which extended the remit of the original RfA far beyond reasonable and normal limits. There should be no move to minimise or disguise that situation. Meowy 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How is that "draconian" argument relevant to the block log? This is merely merge the block logs, something available in machine generated logs...

It helps distinguish really disruptive users that got regular blocks from others. For example, we had several users that had engaged in disruptive sockpuppetary. Past blocks may be overlooked in a hypothetical situation if a user was blocked per RfAR case 1 and needs to be blocked again per RfAR case 2. The complicated nature of the cases as you pointed out makes review rather difficult which exactly why simplifying that process as much as possible is necessary. Some logs are relentless! Such a synchronized block log would minimize the confusion. Block logs are public data and this suggestion isn't even remotely controversial.

Does you opposition have a reason? If so please state it because I do not see the mention of such a reason so far.

-- Cat ^chi? 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Will a single arbitrator or clerk comment on this? -- Cat ^chi? 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: no. The two cases are distinct; merging the logs will merely confuse everyone regarding what exactly each case allows for. Kirill 17:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Apologies if poorly worded; I'm tired)

Clarification is requested to ensure the community correctly interprets principle #3 in this case. In past cases well-intentioned but unforeseen interpretations of a case principle have led to diverse interpretations and many problems. This one has the same potential so following discussion with Mackensen, I'm requesting clarification early on before any incorrect or assumptive meanings are accidentally drawn. The relevant sentence requiring clarification is:

"If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee."

There are several points of principle that may arise; I'd like to raise them all just to be safe.

1. In the past, when arbcom has specified a process or a new principle in its cases, that has always been stated or understood to be a proposal, or ad-hoc process, which the community can review or finalize. Or it runs in parallel with the community's view. In other words, it's akin to "this is the starting point, until things get discussed more". Other than asserting Arbcom's right to be involved, rulings don't usually override future consensus by the community at large on the matter. However, a literal reading of this sentence might be taken to mean, "Arbcom has spoken; this is how confidential information is obligated to be handled. All (and future) community discussion futile. Matter decided."

   Evidence of need: posted today on a proposed policy talk page: "I think the "process" section is ... perhaps not necessary. ArbCom expressed in its ruling that all confidential evidence has to go through them, so it wouldn't seem to admit any other [approaches], not even a subset of ArbCom" [63]

   Clarification #1 - Confirmation that in general, when Arbcom makes decision in the form of a process, it's not intended to have a chilling effect on communal learning, or prevent the community considering, finding, and later rethinking, its own ways, over time. (In fact my understanding is that the community is actively encouraged to do so.)

2. In the past, behavioral evidence has been used against certain sophisticated sockpuppet users. For example, some 60 socks of repeatedly-banned vandal HeadleyDown (AKA. KrishnaVindaloo, maypole, ...) have now been blocked. In proposed policy discussion, more than one person has commented that evidence against well known sockmasters often cannot be placed in public, since its first use would then be to allows the sockmaster to change their "give-away behaviors" ("not a suicide pact").

   Clarification #2 - does Arbcom confirm it now wants all such matters to be its domain now, and no actions of this kind decided by any other user or users?

   Clarification #3 - If so, is this to be a permanent ruling, or more an interim one until the community finds a better proposal that gets consensus. Ie, if the community develops a suitable consensus on an alternative means of handling "confidential information" would Arbcom need to be asked to sanction the communal proposal, before it could replace this ruling?

   Clarification #4 - is it necessary to ask #3? (Not a trivial question, it goes to the heart of how such rulings by Arbcom may be changed or removed, and Arbcom's view on their standing of process rulings it may make)

3. Finally, if appropriate to ask, does the committee encourage or support the community in developing a more long term policy on handling of confidential information? (One is being developed, but the perceived announcement by Arbcom that it will exclusively handle such matters from now on, has led to question of its merit by a number of users and a diminishing of effort.)

In general what is being requested to be clarified is two things - 1) when Arbcom makes a ruling that will specify what some communal norm, process or conduct should be, how much can the community then develop it own answers going forward, and, 2) in this specific ruling does Arbcom really intend that all administrators who have sockpuppets they can identify via "give-away" behavior, should cease handling these from now on unless Arbcom (as opposed to other people) have reviewed each incident?

I'm fairly sure what Arbcom's ruling means :) and I'm fairly sure it's intended to mean commonsense applies. I feel though that it would be useful to have this sentence re-explained, to ensure no incorrect meanings are drawn causing conflict.

Apologies for presenting a few extreme interpretations. It is because such meanings might be drawn by well-intentioned users, that I'd like this important set of clarifications made asap :)

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Let me respond to each in kind:

1. Unless it specifically states otherwise, Arbcom rulings do not preclude the development of new policies. Arbcom rulings reflect policies as the committee understands them at that particular time. Arbcom does not, as a rule, create new policies, although it may reconcile conflicting policies.
2. No, but the administrator should in those cases be able to state which banned user is being blocked, so that users have a point of reference.
3. See #1, for the most part. If policy evolves in a different direction then the situation can change.
4. See #1. Arbcom rulings are not court rulings, nor legislation. Arbcom rulings should not be understood as to prevent the development of new policies.

• As I've said, this ruling reflects policy as we understood it, and I think there's consensus that only Arbcom ought to handle truly "secret" evidence. On the other hand, if a sock is obvious to one sysop, it'll probably be obvious to another. Common sense applies. Arbcom is not the grand clearing-house of sockpuppet investigations. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The community is entirely free to develop a policy to handle matters involving confidential evidence (within reason); our rulings, in general, speak to what we consider to be the present state of Wikipedia convention and practice, and don't make assumptions about future developments.

As for what the principle itself means, there are really two implicit points:

1. By long-standing tradition, the Committee has the authority to take actions based on evidence that, for various reasons, cannot be revealed to the community as a whole.
2. Other individuals or groups do not have such authority (with certain narrow exceptions having to do with WMF-authorized work, and so forth).

Thus, users can't take action based on non-public evidence without consulting us and then refuse to explain their action to the community. The question of what sort of explanation the community considers sufficient is, of course, a question for the community as a whole rather than the Committee. If there is wide consensus to allow or disallow some particular option here, that's perfectly open to discussion.

Does that answer your questions, or did I miss something? Kirill 21:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)