Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 13

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

• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [1]
• PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [2]
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [3]
• Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [4]
• AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [5]

I am requesting that the above case be amended to the effect that User:Elonka be restricted from attacking me through abusive representation of the Arbcom decision. Elonka is trying to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia [6], and is misusing Arbcom restrictions to achieve her means. Most recently, she pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator (User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down." [7]

Claims/evidence

• Elonka claimed that "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on Medieval History within the article)" [8]. There was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question (now France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period.
• Elonka claimed that I " re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)", as ground to have me blocked. Actually I did not recreate deleted content as has been claimed, I only inserted a small link to an older version of an article ("Long version here") instead of the 200k content that had been deleted. I am also not prohibited from creating User subpages so the claim to block me is inappropriate.
• As soon as I try to contribute to Talk Pages, Elonka claims that I am "not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree." [9]. This is highly untrue, as the discussions claimed to have me blocked were either new ([10], far from being consensual (with many users actually agreeing with me) [11], or totally legitimate [12] as they had not been discussed in detail yet[13]
• Elonka claimed the fact that I created a User subpage as ground to have me blocked: "He [PHG] started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)" [14] However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles (as already re-affirmed by the Arbcom when a request to the contrary failed [15]).
• Elonka routinely misrepresents my Arbcom restrictions as affecting all history-related article, when in fact I am only restricted from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles: "This user, User:PHG is restricted from working on history-related articles. The page may look good, but the user routinely misinterprets sources. Please delete, and block the user" [16].

Requested remedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PHG has certainly exhausted my patience. This request by PHG amounts to vexatious litigation. I request the arbitration committee address this dispute with greater vigor. At some point we must stop wasting time on disruptive users who show no sign or intention of improving. Can somebody tell me why we allow PHG to continue editing any history articles, or any articles, given the history of tendentious misrepresentation of sources? Is there any reason to think this is related only to Franks and Mongols, as opposed to Franco-Japanese history?  Redflag [17] Jehochman ^Talk 12:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• PHG, you have demanded far more than your fair share of attention. You fought tooth and nail, forcing us to spend inordinate amounts of time debugging your Franco-Mongol stories. Please understand that this will not be repeated in other areas of Wikipedia. You have not yet acknowledged the nature of past problems, nor undertaken to do better in the future. As such, I think it is time for you to take a break from editing, to reflect on what has happened here, and to see if you want to change your approach. Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • PHG, you previously denied that anything was wrong with your work on Franco-Mongol alliance. You were proven wrong and subjected to sanctions, but you never acknowledged your mistakes, nor promised to do better. Now you deny that anything is wrong at France-Japan relations (19th century). This is de ja vu all over again. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• User:Abd has their own problems with disruption, including close ties to banned User:Sarsaparilla and the Wikipedia:Delegable proxy incident. Their sudden involvement in this matter, upon invitation by PHG is a very poor idea. Jehochman ^Talk 19:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak and PHG's upload log that shows repeated instances of images being uploaded without proper licensure. Until PHG undertakes to respect Wikipedia policies on content and copyright, editing needs to cease. Mentorship might be a reasonable alternative to banning. The current situation of unsupervised editing is creating a significant burden on other volunteers. Please respect our time and effort, and resolve this problem. The arbitration decision thus far has simply moved the wrecking ball from one location to another. Jehochman ^Talk 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Update. It is clear to me that PHG continues to build walled gardens of original research at Wikipedia. I urge the arbitrators to closely review the reference checking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak. For example, see this comment. Christian Polak has been cited multiple times by PHG in other articles, [18] sometimes as the only reference. [19]. It appears that the works of Polak, a businessman and amateur historian, have not been verified independently. PHG provides impressive looking references that fool a substantial number of casual reviewers into thinking that the information is reliable. See Talk:Christian Polak#Bibliography problem. PHG has been warned extensively not to do this, yet he continues full force. To make matters worse PHG has been extremely stubborn and combative when other editors point out problems. See WP:AE#Ethnic and religious provocation in particular. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we get some motion on a motion, please? PHG has been blocked for one week, and is showing no sign whatsoever of accepting any feedback. They are heading inevitably towards an indefinite block. Decisive action now might avoid that regrettable result. Jehochman ^Talk 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Comment on the proposal being voted on: And/or?? Is this suppose to mean something along the lines of PHG chooses a mentor or has to use all English readily available sources? At what point would an "and" occur? Shell ^babelfish 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I became aware of this situation through the MfD mentioned above by Daniel.[20] I noted there that the ArbComm decision in the primary case was apparently being misrepresented, in the nomination by Kafka Liz and in the first statement by Elonka, and I felt that this was important enough to warrant flagging it above the comments. This began a minor edit war, terminated when User:Fredrick day, shortly to be blocked, reverted my compromise language with a grossly uncivil comment, then reverted himself. Other editors then allowed the brief warning to remain. This misrepresentation is at the core of this dispute, in my opinion. The Committee stated that it continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, and it did not accuse him of actual "falsification" of sources. What we see in the complaint above is an assumption that everything from PHG must be examined with a jaundiced eye. That is, in fact, blatant AGF failure, contrary to policy, and itself sanctionable.

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

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

I find it quite disturbing that this article was speedily deleted based on nothing but a claim that it violated ArbComm restrictions, with PHG being blocked, as an additional result, on totally spurious grounds.[21] Notice that Elonka intervenes on PHG's Talk page, on the topic of the article and the block, with a radical misrepresentation of the topic ban.[22]. Further, in this edit, Elonka repeats a disturbing charge: That PHG is "continuing to argue at multiple article talkpages, in defiance of consensus." Consensus arises as a result of discussion and, yes, argument. If argument "against consensus" is not permitted, any consensus that appears is incomplete and biased, a rigid consensus is a fake consensus. If the argument is civil, but, say, stubborn, it may simply be ignored. It's a Talk page. My conclusion is that, while the editors in question doubtless believe that they are serving and protecting the project, the effect of their efforts with PHG is currently disruption and harassment and should cease. --Abd (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding PHG's copy/paste here of what he's already posted at ANI and WP:AE, I point to what's already been said in the ANI thread.[23] As for new comments:

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

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

So, to reduce this collateral damage, I would like to suggest an amendment of my own. One of PHG's tactics is that as he gets challenged, he uses increasingly obscure sources. I have spent literally dozens of hours in libraries, just to research PHG's claims. Some sources were not available locally, or even via interlibrary loan. When I recently visited Washington DC, I spent many hours in the Library of Congress, just to get my hands on some of the more obscure books that PHG uses. I have also often found myself up against language barriers, as I have had to work with text in Latin, French, German, Italian, Hebrew, Arabic, and at one point I even tracked down editors from the Armenian WikiProject to translate text from Medieval Armenian. Even now, PHG is citing works that are in a combination of French and Japanese, and to make things even more complicated, they appear to be non-standard works which are not available in any American library. When I pointed this out,[24] PHG suggested going to a rare book website to purchase them (at a cost of over $100 / book!).[25]

I still think that PHG should be permanently removed from Wikipedia.[26] But, if the community still doesn't have enough stamina for that, I would at least like to see the following amendment:

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

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

PHG is placed on an all-topic source restriction. He must use only reliable English-language sources, which are either easily available online, or commonly available in major libraries (as can be seen at Worldcat).[27] For other sources, PHG may make suggestions on article talkpages. If consensus can be achieved, per article, that a source is appropriate to use, PHG may then proceed. But even with English-language sources, if any editor expresses a concern with one of PHG's sources, he must cease using it until talkpage consensus can be achieved on its suitability.

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

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

I am disturbed by the way PHG wrote Christian Polak, bio of the author of many of the sources that he has been using in France-Japan relations (19th century). In creating this article today, PHG makes M. Polak look like a career historian,[28] when M. Polak is in fact a business consultant who does historical research "in parallel to his professional activities" (translation from the French).[29] (see page 9, sorry about the font). M. Polak's business career is entirely absent from PHG's version of the article, despite the fact that the information was available in the sources he himself used to write the article,[30] as well as simple google searches. I gather that this pattern of selective quoting of material to make a point is one that has been critiqued in the past. --Slp1 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Proposed amendments:

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

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

Amend the decision to state specifically ArbCom's view of the evidence, as this will guide the two chief combatants, as well as admins and community at large, as to what constitutes undue representation of its decision. I note mediation was closed due to "Participants' [plural] unwillingness to proceed with the mediation in good faith", [31] and I note in arbitration these two each accused the other of personal attacks, edit warring, and unfair presentation of viewpoints (not always under those heads). [32] As a first-year editor, I am still learning what WP:NPA, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:NPOV mean, and after much consideration I am still unable to discern from those pages why ArbCom judicially endorsed one party's accusations and made little to no mention of the other's. The ruling [33] briefly characterizes one party's edits wholly in terms of reference to the other party's characterization, and alludes to ArbCom's merely "confirm"ing allegations of misleading use of sources. In short, the ruling permits one to infer ArbCom found all arguments on one side to be persuasive, and none on the other side, which would seem to reflect poorly on ArbCom's impartiality and not to account for the mediator's finding of bilateral unwillingness. In its generic reply I fail to understand independently why any particular argument proposed by either side is valid or not. It would be very helpful to us newcomers to see a list of, say, three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of valid allegations in each category of behavior (attacks, edit war, NPOV) as endorsed by five arbiters, along with three clear-cut, unequivocal examples of allegations in each category which fail to rise to the level of attacks, edit war, or NPOV. For instance, I failed to discern any evidences which unequivocally rose to blatant misrepresentation, complete nonsupport, and total misuse as requested. [34] I believe this specificity not only would be eminently appropriate for ArbCom to publish, but also would greatly clarify to us how evidences differed one from another and would provide clear guidance to both parties as to how enforcement should proceed. Perhaps I am making an overture uncharitable to ArbCom's methodology, in which case I apologize and await being pointed to the proper means for handling the concerns I make obvious in this paragraph. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Found an excellent, balanced example of exactly what I mean (though I have not noted any such behavior from ScienceApologist personally). [35] While I have your attention, could you also tell me if other users beside the presenter are restricted to 500 words? Could be significant, and I didn't see that policy. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment

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

• XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior. (diff of Incident 1) (diff of Incident 2) (further diffs) Repeated six times, where "Elonka" and "PHG" are each cross-combined with "personal attacks", "edit warring", and "pushing point of view". The "has not" cases would include 3 or 4 diffs presented formerly as evidence but which did not rise to the level of the disruptive behavior.
• User Elonka is reminded of the community's limitation against conduct unbecoming to admins, particularly attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, failure to communicate, and gross breach of trust. (responsive to FayssalF)
• User PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. During the balance of PHG's one-year editing restriction, any of his mainspace edits not drawn from widely available English-language sources, as indicated by WorldCat.org, should be preceded by talkpage posting of the source in its context, and are subject to collaborative consensus as described in present remedy 4. (responsive to FloNight)

This seems responsive to the initial request. The alternative requests and proposals seem a strange interpretation of the extant remedy that PHG is encouraged to contribute to mainspace, and I repeat my call for ArbCom to provide clear characterization of its decision and this particular remedy. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC) With many thanks to FloNight, I have refactored the third point of my amendment to provide the specificity which I think any motions in this particular case will need. JJB 21:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have become aware of this case only recently, while participating in an AfD discussion, currently still ongoing, for the article Christian Polak that PHG created. I will say for the record that I have never before crossed paths with PHG, was not involved in and was not aware of the ArbCom case regarding PHG and, even of this moment, am not familiar with the details of this case (nor do I want to learn about them). I have zero interest in the history of Franco-Japanese or Franco-Mongol relations and only participated in the AfD discussion because it was listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. The AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak had some tense moments but proceeded relatively peacefully for a while. However, it then had a flare-up of high drama and by now this AfD has become a rather unpleasant place and I plan to stay away from it. The immediate precursor to this flare-up was an edit by PHG [36] to Christian Polak. This edit introduced a statement that Pollak was awared Légion d'honneur (Chevalier) in 1989. If true, this would certainly have established the subject's notability. However, the reference given by PHG was a site in Japanese [37]. It turned out that PHG mistranslated the content of that site and it was eventually confirmed that Polak received a lesser civil award, Ordre national du Mérite. When the mistake was pointed out by other users, PHG quickly corrected the wrong info [38]. PHG was reported to AE by User:Jehochman, quickly blocked by User:Coren and quickly unblocked by User:El_C (see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Christian Polak).

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

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

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

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

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

Update In the AE discussion of this case, Jehochman suggested mandatory mentorship for PHG. I support this proposal. I don't want to cross-post here, so please see my more detailed comments at AE discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Thank you very much for the motion. Durova^Charge! 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse also. Anthøny 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• I've asked PHG to shorten his statement, at 752 words, it's well past the guideline. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• The "and/or" ruling has passed. I have asked the arbs a question about implementation and will take care of the whole clarification request when I have an answer. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. For the next year:

• PHG is required to use sources that are in English and widely available.

and/or

• PHG is required to use a mentor to assist with sourcing the articles that he edits. The mentors selected must be approved by the Arbitration Committee. In case of doubt raised by another user in respect of a source or citation by PHG, the mentors' views shall be followed instead of those of PHG.

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
3. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Kirill 02:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
6. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Ability for others to check (easily if possible) is always important; more so if there are concerns. Added last clause to 2nd option, without which it would not actually do much since "use a mentor to assist" alone is too vague.
7. Note that there are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Deskana (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

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

• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([39])
• FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ([40])
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ([41])

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

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

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

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

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

In response to Brad's comment.

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

In response to bainer's comment.

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

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

The administrator who handled this matter at Arbitration Enforcement said: "Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act. Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page."[42]

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

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

Since Mastcell indicates[43] that he does not want to identify the specific diff that he thinks is most egregious (as I requested above), I doubt it would be helpful for me to say anything further at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Mastcell's Response to GRBerry: Mastcell, you are accusing me of disruption for saying things like the following to another editor: "You're repeatedly pasting massive amounts of redundant stuff, swamping whatever comments other people make." Mastcell, do you think that if another editor pastes massive amounts of redundant stuff at a talk page,[44][45] thus swamping whatever comments other people make, then I should praise instead of criticize such an editor? Perhaps you will now accuse me of cherry-picking your criticisms of me, but the fact is that I have (over and over again) asked you to cherry-pick your criticisms of me, so that I can respond concisely to what you regard as my most serious offense. Please, go ahead and cherry-pick from your arguments, so that we can focus on a serious complaint instead of one of your less compelling complaints. I do not think that ArbCom is interested in me trying to put in context and rebut every single one of your laundry-list of Ferrylodge quotes. Pick your best one, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to Brad's comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Rejected case

Clerk note: This statement has been forcedly refactored by Daniel, to comply with the length guideline (in KingsleyMiller's absense after being notified). The statement in its' original entirety can be viewed here. 14:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeal Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"ALL,

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

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

eventoddlersneedfathers@freenet.co.uk

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller

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

Substance Relevent talkpages.[46][47][48] and the parties talkpages. Relevant complaints/allegations.[[49][50]

• Kingsley Miller will not 'discuss. Regarding Rutter's 1995 paper I have attempted to discuss this on talkpages more than once and posted chunks of the relevant part to show why I considered his interpretation to be wrong.[51] There is no response from KM. In the absence of response I changed the headings because they misrepresented the source. Similarly, to the range of quotes from mainstream authors who seem to think attachment theory does originate from Bowlby, there has been no response.

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

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

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

• Threats. KingsleyMiller has threatened to pursue JeanMercer with complaints unless she 'distances' herself or ceases editing these pages.[[52]] On his own admission he is in contact with banned editors who may have an issue with myself and /or JeanMercer and is pursuing more.

• KM is a tendentious editor who has a particular POV about Bowlby's contribution and pursues that view to the exclusion of all else. As far as I can ascertain he appears to believe that; maternal deprivation is Bowlby's major work and the one for which he is primarily still known, that maternal deprivation is the dominant theory in use today, that Bowlby was not the main originator of attachment theory, that Bowlby believed that attachment was gender specific, that Bowlby believes only mothers are important to children. Attempts to provide sources indicating that these views might not be correct are met with abuse and allegations of bad faith. The misrepresentation of sources is problematical when the editor will not discuss. In pursuit of his aim he also refactors talkpages, adding tendentious headings and introductions to other editors posts. He also removes sourced information from articles if he considers it irrelevent to or in opposition to his particular POV.[53] He also takes a conspiratorial point of view on editors who disagree with him - as if there were some Bowlby Against Fathers Cabal dedicated to warping page content, which makes sensible discusion impossible. I simply do not understand the allegation of wishing to promote maternal deprivation or confuse the two when much effort has gone into trying to prevent the confusion of the two.

I do not accept any allegations of bad faith. I have attempted to discuss, referred to relevent policies and waited for Kips complaints or his search for advice. I have not pursued any complaints against Kip as he seemed to be seeking advice from more experienced editors. However, despite advice from Thatcher131 [54] and the comments about breach of policies in response to his application for arbitration,[55] the situation seems to be getting worse rather than better. I would love more editors to take part in these pages but if relative newbies like Mrvain68 get attacked in that way for trying to add what appeared to be up-to-date knowledge and research, why should they bother?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have had great problems with this arbitration looming over me tarnishing my reputation. Already two major ammendments have been made [56], [57] after the case was closed, but they came too late (my IP s edits have already been reverted and blocked because people thought I was banned when I wasn't). I would like to think that it's been long enough for it to become irrelevent, but I've thought that many times before and I think the only sure way is to actually get a clarification on it. I have apologised long ago for it, although I still consider the actual "incident" that triggered the arbitration to be a minor issue. I will list my concerns:

1. What is the concern of the arbitration? Half way through all parties agreed that there was no longer an issue to debate. An "arbitration" is meant to be dispute resolution by neutral third parties - who are the parties in dispute?
2. I'm labelled as being disruptive - which part of my actions exactly are deemed disruptive? Despite my numerous requests no evidence was presented to refute anything that I ever said on the evidence page myself and all parties agreed to drop the case.
3. Why am I not restricted to multiple accounts and yet my AltUser (talk · contribs · email) account is still blocked by User:Dmcdevit? Can I be either banned or not banned? Not somewhere in limbo free for anyone with a personal grudge against me to misinterpret in any way they like in attempts to get me blocked.
4. Clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable#Konstable formally desysopped what was I "formally desysoped" for? Lifting a block on my self-identified alternative account where a confused admin mistaking thought I was a "banned user"? I hardly think that is a major matter, considering I've been around wikipedia for 2 years before, without any major controversy and had unanimous support to be made a janitor, I've seen admins do far worse things and get away with it. Or was it using a non-admin account to close backlogged, overdue, and unanimous AfDs on vandal-created articles that contained content (literally) like: "Yellow silverworlf is the master of the universe"?

(Note: Before any of my old IRC-admin friends come back to haunt me over multiple accounts, I will say that I am currently using another account for on-and-off minor editing, because in July last year I found this account too hard to use in terms of the flame-warring that I had to put up with. I have not edited the same pages or participated in the same discussions with these accounts). --Konstable (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it is plain and clear as it is. I've wasted way too much of my time here already. I'm not about to go into extra "discussions" with a "committee" that I've yet only seen do one of: a) escalate minor problems into major problems b) ignore the issue and make "findings of fact" that state policy and "caution" disruptive trolls. There is a deep culture of drama here.--Konstable (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what exactly it is that the committee is being asked to do. The Konstable case is 18 months old and the only active part of it is the restriction on resysopping which requires that it must be through RfA (which apparently excludes appeal to the committee). Reading the above I don't find any indication that Konstable desires the admin bit; it looks more like an attempt to refight the original arbitration which seems distinctly pointless. The arbitration committee is not in control of the reputations of users; if rehabilitation is desired, try constructive editing over the course of several months. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the 2006 case of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable was badly mishandled, for multiple reasons that I (long before I was an arbitrator or previously a clerk) expressed over a couple of weeks, all over the case pages. One of the post-closing amendments was adopted at my insistence, because the committee decision contained a finding of fact that was manifestly inconsistent with the credible evidence, and the decision contains at least one other finding whose accuracy is highly suspect. I am extremely pleased that despite the events described in the case and the subsequent events Konstable describes above, he has decided to resume editing. All that being said, I would appreciate Konstable's being more specific concerning what specifically he would like the committee to do at this stage, i.e., vacate specific portions of the decision, etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Additional note: There has been an almost complete turnover in the membership of the committee since Konstable's case was decided: of the 15 arbitrators, only three were serving in November-December 2006. Although I remember the case well, most of the other arbitrators probably know little or nothing about it. If I were to move to vacate the decision or part of it, they would either have to study an 18-month-old case from scratch, or take my word for what the result should be. Comments welcome on whether either of these would be desirable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Noting that I've read Konstable's comments. Would be helpful if he was more specific with regard to the requested action by the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• Avruch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified by e-mail)

I would like the Committee to please reconsider the indefinite restriction placed upon Privatemusings that prevents editing to any article that is "substantially a biography of a living person." I request that this restriction be commuted to an indefinite or time-limited parole, including: allowing blocks in line with the remedy based on edits reasonably construed as a violation of the BLP policy and restriction to 1RR for all non-vandalism edits on BLP articles.

Privatemusings, returned from his 90 day ban, has edited reasonably and participated as a member of the community in a number of policy related areas. His contributions have shown a fully improved understanding of and adherence to Wikipedia policies and norms, and Wikipedia has benefited from his presence. He has not incurred any additional blocks or other restrictions since returning from his ban, and many editors expressed during his ban and upon its expiration that his insight and participation was valuable both on-wiki and on the Wikback forum. I've even seen grudging praise about his presence on Wikipedia Review.

The link to evidence presented against Privatemusings that is related to the BLP policy is here. While the links to the di Stefano article edits are admin-only, the description does not lead me to believe that they are egregious violations of BLP policy. It is clear to me and many others that the atmosphere of the di Stefano article is particularly strained and contentious, but PM and others should not be penalized permanently for inartful attempts to edit an article whose history is unclear to newcomers. Edits to the King article are admittedly more serious, and display a regrettable lapse in judgment. However, it seems unlikely to me that such behavior will be repeated and I believe the Committee should give Privatemusings the opportunity to reform and eventually transition to an unrestricted status should his conduct remain exemplary. Avruch ^T 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes please! I'd love an unencumbered account! I'll happily engage with any process any of you recommend; anyone have any questions, for example? I could answer some on a subpage? or expand answers to points you feel it would be good to address? - would anyone like to chat on IRC or somewhere? - let me know. I should also note that ides like a '1RR' on biographies of living people are fine with me, and in many ways are good practice, as well as reassuring anyone worried that I might leap into disruptive editing. How's about a six month '1RR'? I'm also open to any other ideas which may be floating around.

I think my case was a little unusual, and I also wonder if there's any appetite to look at the decision overall, and specifically some of the principles involved (well actually, mainly this one) - which I feel may not have been applied equitably across the board. I'll explain further if any find it relevant.

Regardless of the outcome of this request, I've got a couple of quick questions that are hopefully easy to resolve as well;

• A link was provided at the end of my biography editing restriction and I wanted to clarify the intention of that. I'm not sure which aspects of my editing the arb.s which to define as inappropriate (one article, two, or just a general sort of thing). In particular it would be very helpful to me to have a concrete response to my posts like this one and this one.
• If this is too soon, how long d'ya think represents good timing? I'm happy to wait as long as you like, but I'm not completely sure what will change in the interim, so would hope you might consider this now.

thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Too soon for a change. Give it some more time, please. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Privatemusings has improved his behaviour considerably since his return and if he maintains this attitude then I will definitely be prepared to remove the remaining restrictions - but we need slightly longer to show it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Too soon. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Give it another couple months and if behavior is still good I will give my unqualified support. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• I would support modification of the remedy, but defer to my colleagues who believe that the passage of some additional time would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to Clerk: I believe this can be archived. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (subject to restriction in earlier case - notified of this discussion here)

Requesting clarification whether the restriction passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites#MichaelCPrice restricted is to apply to only that article, related articles, or wikipedia in general.

This is probably the shortest ever clarification request... Ooops, not anymore! :P -- Cat ^chi? 19:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• The restriction is general; were it limited to a single article, it would state that explicitly. Kirill ^(prof) 01:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Exactly. I'm surprised anyone thinks there's any ambiguity. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Agree that it applies to all articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, this is not ambiguous and is clearly a restriction applicable to any article. --bainer (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

See AE noticeboard thread and topic-ban appeal

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

• Benjiboi (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) (initiator)
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), (topic-banning admin) notification
• Durova (talk · contribs) (editor central in AE threads) notification

I request a complete lift and reversal of the indefinite topic ban against me on Matt Sanchez. I'm quite disappointed at having to take this step to clear my name and worked to avoid having to take this step and indicated so during the AE discussion.[58] I'm surprised that my contributions to Wikipedia was treated in this manner and the same assuming of good faith we extend to all others seemed to evaporate towards me despite my obvious attempts to communicate civilly and directly.[59] I feel the blocking admin may have been personally invested in driving me away from the article by their involvement in numerous OTRS tickets from banned user Bluemarine (who is one of Matt Sanchez's accounts) and making edits on Sanchez's behalf. I appreciate the work that OTRS volunteers do and that they are trying to work with someone who earned a community RfC and Arbcom ban for voluminous and personal attacks amongst other issues. However, despite Sanchez's assertions that I, and others, are a part of a "radical left-leaning fringe that is the LGBT is hell bent on venting frustrations through the article", many editors, including admins and LGBT editors, worked to follow policy and work with Sanchez and tried to look past his personal attacks and unique style of writing accusatory statements. When information and verifiable statements at odds with Sanchez's views were presented he routinely would fill up the talk page sometimes contradicting himself. It's understandable for someone to want their biography to only show them in the best possible light but topic-banning editors because the subject of the article doesn't like their tone[60] doesn't seem like a inspiring direction for the project and in Sanchez's case the list of user's he's found problematic would quickly add up.

In short, the article exists because his notability is as a former gay porn star who became a marine and then the poster-child for US social conservatives thus placing Sanchez in the center of several current American culture wars including issues of gays in the military. (As referenced by the Military Times as a "don't ask, don't tell" issue) I personally don't care about his sexuality or expression thereof, I do care about presenting sexuality issues correctly and as factually as possible. In addition, I felt I was helping Sanchez avoid abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion and personal gain by insisting that claims be reliably sourced.

The other reason his case received national attention was that it was revealed he also was a "gay" escort (an escort for men who have sex with men) who mostly advertised in gay male magazines with Sanchez stating he was an escort (prostitute) on the internationally broadcast Fox News Channel Hannity & Colmes show. Sanchez stated (in the Arbcom case and elsewhere on wiki) that he later retracted his statements but no proof of that retraction seems to have ever been presented to balance out his earlier statements. I have regularly and consistently stressed than anything about his escort work has to be well sourced and neutral. I believe he is now being coached how to self-publish retractions on his blog. I can certainly see why Sanchez wouldn't want anyone around who was basically saying we print what's verifiable not just what you'd like. It wasn't until Sanchez's Arbcom ban and the related AfD during his Arbcom case that the circular talk page dynamic seemed to disappear. In fairness, he may have also been targeted by SPAs but that's not a license to abuse those you disagree with. Once Sanchez was banned I worked to clean up the talk page, archives and keep the discussion constructive and as focussed as possible in a collaborative fashion. (See January's archive for instance.) Even when folks disagreed we mostly stayed constructive and tried to find workable solutions. My contributions were mostly constructive and it would we a stretch to paint me as simply trying to disrupt or otherwise compromise Wikipedia's policies.

JzG (Guy), in what I feel was a somewhat condescending, impatient, confrontational and personal manner, bordering on uncivil, IMHO, rather than simply warning me in any manner suggested instead I be topic-banned without giving me any notice I had breached policy or was heading in a bad direction. When I responded to all the stated concerns he repeated that this ban was really no big deal.[61] When I sought guidance I was told I should take my case to JzG (Guy) directly to see what it would take to have the ban lifted.[62] He deleted the request only stating " Discussion at AE board" in the edit summary.[63] Later JzG (Guy) admitted he was unwilling to budge on the issue. I sent two email to the Arbcom elist per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee stating

Finally, I believe it states, "[E]ditors are expected to make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement...in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals." If I've overstepped a line or indeed violated some policy then please point it out, perhaps a warning would have served the purpose of ensuring the "tone" of edits remained civil and constructive. I wish it had been considered and attempted, instead I have been shown what I consider to be disrespect and a leap of bad faith. Banjeboi 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

4 March
Amongst other {{editprotected}} requests, a request was made by Durova to remove wording that could have been reworded instead; within that request was that the reference was to content hosted at YouTube. There didn't seem to be an emphasis or effort to improve the wording to clarify that the gay escort didn't refer to Sanchez, just to remove it altogether. This request was later struck by the same editor who later filed the AE request that started all this. Durova struck the request as it was pointed out they were mistaken and that it wasn't YouTube after all.

21 March
(19:56, 21 March 2008)
JzG (Guy) edits Sanchez article removing (rather than rewording) problem phrase (it has since been re-added and reworded). And removing a source rather than correctly attributing to the original source.

(22:50, 21 March 2008)
JzG (Guy) opens ArbCom case amendment to allow Bluemarine (Matt Sanchez) to comment on the Matt Sanchez talk page as "over a dozen" OTRS tickets (averaging two per week) since Sanchez's 7 Feb Arbcom ban. He also alleges that the protected article has been edited with an a agenda and other editors should be monitored. The request is withdrawn as Sanchez again evades his ban. Although arguably incomplete some of his socks have been tagged and others have been logged into the Arbcom case.

22 March
(09:10, 22 March 2008)
Durova first posts to the talk page regarding YouTube as source concern; they state they are making "one last effort" but no previous efforts to bring up sourcing in the article seem to be evident. They also don't suggest, even as an option, to source to the original publisher. Nothing seems to suggest that anyone would have opposed fixing the sourcing and, in fact, it has since been done.

(23:03, 22 March 2008)
Durova files noticeboard AE request to remove Youtube links and "potentially defamatory claims that reference them be removed from the article". When asked why posting to the AE board they respond, "Two editors consistently oppose, and are filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments that give passersby the mistaken impression that this is a content dispute. But this isn't a content issue; copyright is bright line policy. I am on the verge of filing a separate AE thread against one of those editors for tendentiousness, incivility, and disruption." I feel however that this was presented as we need to remove all YouTube citations and this, IMHO, was the first that this was brought up. Also they painted me as "filling up the talk page AE thread with irrelevant comments that give passersby the mistaken impression that this is a content dispute". Instead of approaching the issue as we need to fix this sourcing it was, IMHO, presented as this needs to also be removed. After months of Sanchez's thwarting progress it was quite frustrating to be accused of the very same thing. Subsequently the refs have been amended to the original publishers as I would have readily agreed had it been presented as such. I was also not given any indication that I was in any way violating BLP (or any policy), nor was I notified in any way that I was being discussed on an Admin board. Note: the links have been updated to the original source and no "potentially defamatory claims" from those sources seem to have been found although many other items that show the subject in a less than flattering light have been removed or reworked.

23 March
'(11:19, 23 March 2008)
Admin JzG (Guy) proposes myself and another editor be topic-banned "for consistent failure to follow WP:BLP". No notice was given to me or any indication that I was being considered for a ban or that I had violated any policy.

The Arbitration Committee is well aware, I think, of the long-term issues of accuracy and neutrality in Matt Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sanchez, aka Bluemarine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is banned and therefore restricted to using OTRS to request changes to the article. This has resulted in an absolute barrage of email, much of it related to edits made by Benjiboi and Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (now indefinitely blocked for other reasons).

The reason I advocated a topic ban was that Sanchez complained specifically about Benjiboi's edits and their neutrality, and because Sanchez vehemently denies the "escort" characterisation which Benjiboi is so determined to include. A situation with a banned article subject, WP:BLP concerns, what appears to be selective reporting in the outside world, and obsession with including problematic content, is pretty close to impossible to manage.

I said right up front that I don't consider this a black mark against Benjiboi, we just don't need the hassle of tens of emails a day from an extremely agitated subject. We've had well over a hundred emails in total.

Some OTRS tickets related to this:

• VRTS ticket # 2007041410014448 (most of the emails merged here)
• VRTS ticket # 2008020910013442
• VRTS ticket # 2008022710022631
• VRTS ticket # 2008032910004467

I know this is going to sound like Morton's Fork, but the main reason I am so strongly opposed to Benjiboi editing that article, is that he is so very determined to do so. We do not need obsessive editors on WP:BLP articles. This was not my call alone, but it's true that not many were involved. Durova was one, and she also has long experience of the Sanchez article.

If article probation is to mean anything at all, then it must surely mean that people dealing with a sensitive article (and an angry subject) can request others to leave it alone, and expect to have that request stick. In this case, requesting did not work, so we had a topic ban, and now this. What is so very very important about the Sanchez article that Benjiboi must be allowed to contribute despite the subject's clear preference otherwise?

Matt Sanchez has made many requests, and a decent proportion of them have been rejected as mere interpretations of weight. The "escort" business is only one of a number of contentious issues, most of which have now been settled. Sanchez has never had a right of veto over the content and I've several times told him "no" in no uncertain terms. This is not about Benjiboi's advocacy of one particular edit, either, it's about a long-standing pattern of advocacy on that article, and yes, any editor who showed such a pattern of edits would cause the same problem, because the pattern of edits and talk page comments reveals an agenda, and Wikipedia (especially Wikipedia biographies) is not the place to pursue an agenda. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by others and discussion on above

Comment: The subject has been banned from Wikipedia for his homophobic attacks on gay editors, including Benjiboi. Via the subject's year long ban from Wikipedia, the subject has no rights to an article about him, just as Ann Coulter has no rights to the article about her. Benji is one of the best editors I've seen on Wikipedia. Characterizing him as obsessed with the Sanchez article is absurd. His contibs history proves that. If he's obsessed with anything, it would be Wikipedia in general and not poor little ole Matt Sanchez. Benji works on many articles at once. Just a look at his talk page right now shows "notes to self" all over it referencing the many articles he's working on. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 15:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez's ludicrous and defamatory attacks on gays has no bearing on who gets to edit the Matt Sanchez article. Mr. Sanchez, to be indelicate, can shove his bigoted views up his own ass. There is obsessive behavior (the history is demonstrated and incontrovertible) coming from multiple sides here. To be as un-PC as possible: It's odd that most of the "pushing" to include negative material comes from self-admitted homosexual editors. The whole thing has a tit-for-tat retaliatory feel, and we don't need that shit. Before anyone screams "Oh my God, Lawrence hates the LGBTers," my best friend went from Mr. to Ms., and I love her still, one of my best friends in the world is as gay as people can possibly be, and I was the one that assembled the bulk of the evidence displaying the absurd homophobic attacks here by Sanchez. However, "Wikipedia" doesn't need an evangelical war of The Gays Vs. Sanchez and Sanchez Vs. The Gays. His article is so heavily watched now that any attempts to whitewash or scrub the article of his sourced and factual history of performing in gay pornography, and doing some gay escort work (both points which seem to be points of contention) won't happen. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to JzG's statement. While I appreciate the position OTRS volunteers are put in I seem to be getting punished for Sanchez (yet again) gaming the system. I'm not an OTRS volunteer and have no access to the emails linked above so have no clue what Sanchez wrote but all my contributions are quite evident in the article and talk page history. I may be wrong here but I don't recall anyone, ever, asking me not to edit there prior to this surprise ban. No one politely asided me to indicate that sadly Wikipedia does topic-ban editors primarily because the subject prefers them not to. I'm also not "determined" or "obsessed" to include anything that isn't true and reliably sourced. As I've stated a few times in the AE threads I have no problem following policies and if I made an error simply (civilly) point it out.

Over a hundred emails in two months? Doesn't that seem to indicate that just maybe, yet again, Sanchez is the primary source of this drama and, yet again, instead of dealing with him firmly to set boundaries the frustration is applied elsewhere. A variance was being created for Sanchez so he could edit on the talk page but was dropped because he wasn't willing or able to refrain from again evading his ban. If this situation is "close to impossible to manage" it's not by my doing and I'm more than willing to abide by policies and, in fact, have frequently taken bios to the BLP board as well as assisted other bios listed there. The same courtesy shown to obvious vandals didn't seem to be extended to myself. This ban was stated as dealing with reliable sourcing on the AE board and had it been presented as such in the first place on the talk page as "we need to correct these sources to the original sources" I don't think anyone would have disagreed. Banjeboi 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Punished? I don't think so. There are over two million articles you can edit without causing problems of apparent militant advocacy and upsetting the subject. You're not banned from Wikipedia, you are free to edit on any subject you like except Matt Sanchez, who is, it must be said, an incredibly minor figure. Guy (Help!) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the key part is that this is the encyclopedia "anyone can edit".. including any article so that argument is moot. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 18:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You think? Even banned and blocked and topic banned and WP:COI editors? Guy (Help!) 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I think it's punishment and a black mark against myself even if you do not, and I have not been blocked or otherwise banned. You seem to put a lot of weight on what Sanchez, a community banned and blocked (and COI) editor who continues to evade bans even this week, while dismissing my concerns as really not a big deal. Banjeboi 23:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Very little, actually, but I do put a good deal of weight on what article subjects in general have to say, at least to the point of ensuring that we don't actively piss them off and make more enemies. Your tireless advocacy of the strongly disputed and not obviously important "escort" factoid, which has no significant secondary sources, is one example of why I don't think you should be editing this particular biography; I don't feel you are sufficiently dispassionate about the subject. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree that BLP subjects should be given due consideration and they are considered experts on themselves. In this case, it's hardly my contributions that have "pissed him off" or put him on a path of being an enemy. The campaign against POV and fringe warriors is basically commendable but I resent being painted as such. I just happen to consistently advocate for civility and RS's which Sanchez didn't care for unless it was to his favor. If he didn't like something it was a barrage of invective and complaints, most of it groundless. My "tireless advocacy" was little more than simply ensuring that due process of vetting "the strongly disputed and not obviously important "escort" factoid" to see what, if anything, should be included and how. Since you seem convinced that I was somehow invested in the escorting point of information you may wish to also note that it was a source of debate long before I ever showed up and even after I had be banned and all previous discussion archived away. Again, personally, I don't care that much, I never did and still don't. I was slow to edit the article and when I did I also went slowly and worked toward consensus as a general rule. This whole AE incident started as a sourcing concern and those were corrected, and would have been trouble-free had they been clearly presented as such in the first place. To me, it sounds like he's been sequestered to OTRS tickets and is now abusing that avenue in a similar fashion (volume).

If I "tirelessly advocated" for anything it was to stop the nonsense both from Sanchez and from those making attacks against him. I have sought consensus on how to deal with the escorting material and never advocated for including unless it was solid. What I objected to was silencing the debate on the basis we don't talk about something the subject doesn't like. During this process here I again noted that we have statements he had done escorting but as of yet there doesn't seem to be anything presented in reliable sources that he denies it, if he's self-published something usable then presenting it on the talk page would probably be helpful. I don't want my ban lifted so I can edit that article but because I feel it was wrong in the first place. Banjeboi 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The original WP:AE report that triggered the topic ban by JzG is archived here. (I closed this report.) The follow-up discussion of Benjiboi's protest is archived here. 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Having been involved with this for a long time myself I have to agree with Guy's assessment, unfortunately. All the regulars on Matt Sanchez should find some other pages to work on. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see gaps in Benjiboi's presentation. Actually we had substantial discussion about YouTube hostings prior to 22 March. The problems there were contributory copyright infringement, as laid forth in Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP were also relevant. The article was sourcing negative information about a living subject to copyvio hostings at YouTube. I would have had no problem with citing such material to a legitimate hosting or a transcript, but linking to copyright infringements places WMF at risk of a lawsuit. Per BLP, negative text in the article that had no legitimate citation needed to be removed, at least temporarily, until a legitimate hosting or a show transcript could be found.

I first raised these issues on 29 February:

Durova: Videos can be edited and digitally altered in misleading ways, so a video hosted on a blog isn't reliable either. That goes for YouTube too, which is a point I hadn't raised yet. I'm not taking any partisan position here. Count the number of Blogspot and YouTube links I've removed in my last thousand edits. Or double check with the noticeboard.[64]

Benjiboi is aware of that statement; he replied an hour later.[65] I responded again.[66]

The next day he continued the thread as follows:

Benjiboi: Disagree completely. The world was agreed to be flat at one point as well, now we have better information that just maybe that isn't accurate. New media sources continue to evolve and wikipedia continues to keep up with those changes, sometimes successfully. I again assert that both the video of Sanchez doing what he says he does and the content which no one seems to dispute can be used and if semantics is an issue address those concerns. Dismissing something out of hand doesn't make for better articles.[67]

With that statement, Benjiboi was dismissing the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry precedent on contributory copyright infringement as semantics, which is a hypothesis that would really be better to test on his own website where he bears the consequences, than on WMF's website where the Foundation bears the consequences. He is also attempting to lecture me about new media. Although I was tempted to reply with a link to my dozens of featured picture credits, instead I just referred him to a noticeboard for third party feedback:

Durova: You are welcome to take advantage of this full protection to see whether the volunteers at WP:BLPN confirm your proposal regarding sources.[68]

His reply was sarcastic:

Benjiboi: Lovely. How special of you to make suggestions for my volunteering.[69]

Again on March 4 I mentioned the YouTube problem at another thread. Here is a link to that thread, which gives a good picture of how difficult even the simplest changes had become: Talk:Matt_Sanchez/Archive_18#Wall_of_Shame_photo_edit_request. Another relevant thread, immediately before the WP:AE request: Talk:Matt_Sanchez/Archive_18#Ahem. It was partly due to the difficulty of getting even bright line policy edits implemented that, after waiting nearly a full month to settle obvious BLP and copyright issues that ought to have been handled immediately, I resorted to AE for an edit request.

Also, contrary to Benjiboi's assertions, I did offer alternative citation options. It wasn't my responsibility to spell out these things and I was somewhat concerned that this would appear patronizing, but I wanted to be perfectly fair:

Durova: Now to state this for clarity: there are other ways besides YouTube to cite a major news broadcast. It's been nearly a full month since I first raised this point about YouTube in late February so I hope the editors who wish to retain the underlying information have been at work obtaining official transcripts of the relevant broadcasts.[70]

Overall, Benjiboi's participation has had several tendentious traits. I'll supply examples of the others if requested, but this presentation is already long:

• Emphasizing the article subject's career in pornography.
• Asserting that the article subject is or was a male escort; in other words, a prostitute.
• Downplaying the subject's military career.
• Downplaying the subject's journalism career.

I wish to draw the Committee's attention to Benjiboi's insistence, even here on this page, upon claiming that Matt Sanchez was an escort. Per David Shankbone's actions at Michael Lucas (director), that highly damaging assertion is to be made with particular caution even when the sources are impeccable. At Matt Sanchez it was being sourced in article text to non-notable blogs. Benjiboi fiercely defended that practice. We had several exchanges about it. Here's one example:

Durova: (I had already given examples of what sorts of blog citations would be acceptable, and why the particular one under discussion was not). Benjiboi, blogs as sources are a settled matter; I remove inappropriate blog citations all the time. That's unacceptable per both WP:RS and WP:BLP. If you have any doubts about my good faith and fairness, please take your doubts to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.[71]

Benjiboi:"blogs as sources are a settled matter" umm hardly. Just because many blogs are less than reliable certainly some are fine. Just wondering are you disputing any of the information as true? If so perhaps you could simply remove the ref that so distresses this strict interpretation as all blogs are bad thinking. Did you notice that the post in question is a video of - Sanchez conducting an interview? Please. The reality police are calling.[72]

At WP:AE I was on the fence about Benjiboi's topic ban and afterward I even offered to open a thread myself to lift his ban after one month if no further problems arose. Here is the latest repetition of that offer, where on April 20 I offered to open the request three days early.[73] Instead of replying he opened this request, where ne makes no mention of these overtures, misrepresents my involvement, and either does not recognize or does not understand the underlying policy and copyright issues at stake. That looks, unfortunately, like a preview of what to expect if his topic ban is lifted. Although I would like to support his return, his presentation renews my concerns.

One further statement for the record. I absolutely do not endorse Matt Sanchez's statements about gay people or the particular insults he has directed at some of the people who edited this article. That was one of the reasons I supported Mr. Sanchez's siteban. Privately, I strongly endorse LGBT rights (straight but not narrow). When I put on my Wikipedian hat I set personal politics on a shelf and apply dry policy analysis. I have answered content RFCs for Michael Moore, Matt Sanchez and Michael Lucas (director) on exactly the same neutral basis. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Durova's comments. I'm sorry if you felt I was purposely misleading in any way. Firstly, I included you as your actions started the whole AE thread thus my ban. I didn't mean to imply that was your intent. To answer your assertion that there are "gaps", the querty content issue was focussed on blogs as reliable sources not on YouTube as a reliable source. The answer in both cases should be to source to the original broadcaster rather than the site simply hosting the content. In the discussion, in fairness, YouTube was mentioned so could be seen as where the issue arose. To my point the content didn't seem to be presented as "this sourcing needs to be corrected" as much as "this content has to be deleted". I wouldn't have added the querty blog except that it seemed terribly non-controversial to state that the Sanchez had conducted a video interview as a vlogger and here is that vlog. I still disagree that all blogs and vlogs are considered unreliable and will decline to entangle myself in copyright discussions. I also felt the suggestion that I should shop the idea of was this a reliable source around as faulty as the concensus was that the content wasn't needed and if it wasn't considered a reliable source then forum-shopping seemed innappropriate to me. I felt your statement at that time was being sarcastic towards me and I responded in kind, that was a mistake. Also, just to clarify I have no website(s) where I engage in any wikipedia activity nor do I have any interest in Sanchez past the content of the article on this site.

I do want to point out that your "offer alternative citation options" came twenty minutes after you started the AE thread. This might be simple misunderstandings on a heated talk page but if your attempt was to correct the sourcing it wasn't clear to me so I apologize.

As for your highlights of my "tendentious traits" in regards to that article his notability, as far as reliable sourcing is concerned, is tied to his past porn career, this isn't a porn bio so shouldn't look like one but for those looking for that information we should cover it appropriately and with balance. This is tied directly to his military and journalism careers. We have plenty of sources for the adult entertainment career but talk page concensus is that he is likely no longer in the military with the only reason we don't state so is we have no reliable source stating that he no longer is. As for his journalism, I don't believe I've ever downplayed his journalism career and as is evident from the querty blog and other content (including Sanchez's vlog channel on YouTube) I was trying to add more information. I don't recall doing anything but trying to stick with wikipedia standards on whether he should be called a war-blogger or whatever was most appropriate and similar discussions continued after I was banned. I even listed the blog posts added to the article as examples of his work so that interested editors could try to find some representative quotes to use.

As for his escorting I really don't care that much if he did or didn't. He said he did, the incident that made him nationally known certainly said he did and there were lengthy discussions on primary vs secondary sources. The issue seemed far from settled but you've "boldly" archived all of it so until the next person brings it up or a new source covers it it can be anywhere else but on his article. Your links about "Benjiboi's insistence, even here on this page, upon claiming that Matt Sanchez was an escort. ... At Matt Sanchez it was being sourced in article text to non-notable blogs. Benjiboi fiercely defended that practice. We had several exchanges about it. Here's one example:" is completely off-base. First that is the qwerty blog thread about Sanchez being a vlogger interviewing someone else who was an escort not anything having to do with Sanchez himself escorting; also the thrust of adding that content was to help anchor him as covering the CPAC convention as a vlogger as well as that he had been corresponding with the interviewee while Sanchez was in the war zones, none of it seemed controversial to me. Secondly, when the escorting topics were brought up, I worked toward talkpage consensus on what information to add about the escorting as well as what wording. We never had consensus and I opposed adding anything to the article until there was some agreement.

Finally, as to your offers to help lift my ban I thanked you for your support, period. I have been working on my above statement ever since the second AE thread closed and this route was presented as the only way for me to overturn an admin topic ban. This has caused me more stress than any of the on-wiki homophobia I've dealt with and I only was able to finish it today, apologies if my timing isn't to your liking but I decided months ago to take a break from my volunteering here whenever I was feeling stressed and getting banned from any article without any heads up that I was on thin ice has made me reconsider if my time has been worth it. Banjeboi 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of ground is covered there, so with space in mind I'll target this reply to just a few points. There was a concern among some editors that tangential mentions of other people's escort work were being abused per Wikipedia:Coatrack with ambiguous syntax to suggest that Mr. Sanchez was also an escort. At BLP articles, citation of blogs other than the subject's own is a delicate matter under the best of circumstances, and this was being handled very indelicately under adverse circumstances. If you thought my tone was sarcastic I wish you had brought the concern to my attention rather than engage in tit-for-tat. It has never been my intention to give offense, and those replies left me at a loss for what else to do. I hoped that had just been a bad day for you so I waited several weeks to pursue the matter seriously again, but obviously this kind of issue can't wait forever. If you can't trust me and won't seek third opinions, where else can I go? Most straight men wouldn't touch this topic with a ten inch pole.

Part of the problem when editorial discussion becomes too contentious is that outside opinions are harder to obtain. Here's one candid statement from earlier this month:

Cleo123: As an outsider, here in response to the notice at WP:BLPN - I, too, support the phrasing created by Durova and Abecedare. Insistence on the bizarre and inadequately sourced phraseology "embedded blogger" strikes me as an attempt to diminish sourced professional accomplishments, which is POV. Wow! I can't believe something so obvious and clear cut as the man's profession is the subject of such heated debate. Quick! Get me off of this page! LOL! Never! Never to return! LOL! You all have my sympathies!May the Wiki force be with you![74]

Lastly, I do not endorse JzG's assertion that Mr. Sanchez's personal opinions about who should or shouldn't edit the article ought to have any bearing. It doesn't matter to me (or, I hope, to the Committee) what any individual editor's sexual orientation is. What does matter is whether someone's contributions are productive and consistent with policy. Durova^Charge! 22:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack concerns are certainly valid, I wish it had been brought up in advance on the talk page as other had been simply as "the article states _____" but per coatrack we should reword to _____ so to remain more NPOV. That's how we've been able to clean up a lot of other problems there. Frankly, I thought Sanchez's interviewing another blogger, on the anniversary and at the same event of Sanchez's national fame (the CPAC convention/awards), who had gone through nearly identical experience as Sanchez (conservative voice being outed as a gay adult entertainer) could have made for a good compare/contrast launching point. As for editor's being straight or any gender or sexuality it really didn't cross my mind and rarely does. I realize most people have more traditional heterosexist and gender binary ideas (people are "either strait or gay" and either "male or female") so I rarely get into those areas unless the discussion seems to be of value.

I think I covered that I had no issues with his writing/blogging/journalism career being covered, whatever career title policies stated it be termed. Pretty consistently I've advocated letting reliable sources speak for themselves as a way to stop the SPA abuse and other nonsense. I also felt we were knee deep in experienced editors lately so someone would come up with a way to deem what was most appropriate, I was certainly in no rush. As was evident from discussions like Sanchez is not a writer, I wasn't terribly bothered one way or another but moved to simply keep it accurate, organized and move on. He's a writer, yes, move on. Right below that section is Work as an escort, where my take on the whole escorting/prostitution issue is pretty evident to lean on what reliable sources state and presenting the information neutrally. Also it's fairly evident that this was an issue that many editors besides myself also felt wasn't resolved but others can judge for themselves. Banjeboi 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for those replies. I agree that Matt Sanchez is no saint and negative information has a place in the article. My concern is that it be properly sourced and overall balanced. This page has been a battleground far too long; I'd like to see it on the same footing as any other BLP. Durova^Charge! 10:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I agree that it needs a lot of work still, I waited a while before I did much until I could suss out what we actually had to work with (trying to see the content through all the drama). When I started I did more simple things like adding sections and infobox. I've also learned to look for the overall arch on bios as well and Sanchez seems to be media person of sorts, an actor, editorializer and now doing reporting/commentaries on blogs, vlogs and apparently overseas TV. I liken him to other political commentators and think his views should be expressed with some quotes so he "speaks" for himself. To me the answer was almost never to delete content to achieve balance but add content like expanding the military and Columbia sections so the stuff Sanchez deems negative (adult entertainer) isn't lost but minimized as a part of a past career. I've said before that if he just let others build the article it would be so much better. Banjeboi 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Cleo123's comment above used to illustrate how difficult it was to solicit outside opinions when "editorial discussion becomes too contentious" should be seen in context. All talkpage contributions from myself had been archived away prior to that comment. This perhaps would support that the topic itself is controversial with or without my involvement. Banjeboi 18:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi wrote:

Although I can see how you might piece together the above timeline it's not one I've ever seen. Instead most of the accounts I've read have been more along the lines that his former clients or at least those who claimed to be his former clients blew the whistle to the bloggers.

Former Matt Sanchez clients have made statements? Where?

Benjiboi is the only person to describe Sanchez as a vlogger. What does that mean? And does he have a source? I haven't found one anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushdittobot (talk • contribs) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Rushdittobot. It doesn't matter where those former clients, or more precisely those who claimed to be former clients made any statements unless it's in a reliable source that we can use. I've yet to see any usable content of that nature but if it interests you take it to the article's talk page, I imagine you'll get the same answer. On YouTube Matt has his own vlogging channel. A vlogger is a blogger who also does video blogs, hardly a controversial term but if it just seems off-base then, again, take it to that talk page, this forum is not to make cases for or against article content. I will assume good faith that you just happenned along that talkpage thread on Thatcher's talkpage and naturally decided that you should comment here. Sadly, the experience with that article has been socks both for and against Sanchez and this seems to be along those lines. Banjeboi 11:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Rushdittobot (talk · contribs) is actually Brianlandeche‎ (talk · contribs) who has been indef blocked for proxy-editing for banned/blocked user Bluemarine (talk · contribs) (Matt Sanchez). Banjeboi 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re jpgordon's statement below: ..with Benji crossed off and the new editor's name written in crayon... That's a rather incivil, unfair and inappropriate comment from a sitting Arbitrator. Would appreciate that being excised. Neıl ☎ 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a pretty fair assessment, as Sanchez has moved on to his next targets, with the same shopworn allegations. Aleta and I have apparently been identified as "enemies" in the most recent OTRS complaint by a Sanchez proxy[75]. Sanchez appears to be determined to dictate how his Wikipedia biography is written, with persistent attempts to whitewash well-sourced but inconvenient facts, and to emphasize non-notable current activities. I continue to support omitting the more contentious discussions of his alleged escorting career (it's not particularly well-sourced, and the only sources that discuss his repeated denials are not considered reliable, presenting an undue weight/coatrack concern), but I don't support turning the article into a public-relations stunt for Sanchez either.

I've argued for the deletion of this article[76] at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Sanchez (3rd nomination), but consensus was not on my side. Perhaps my suggestion of a focus change on the article should be reconsidered, although I don't think that I (or any of the other regular editors of the article) should be involved in its development. Horologium (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

• The whole point of an article probation is to reduce the thrashing and tsuris associated with heated topics. It's not the faithless editors who have to worry about article probation; they get taken care of in other fashions. Good editors, however, can also cause problems, sometimes by their very presence. That their intentions are good, and that their history is sterling, does not alter the fact that their work on specific articles can be disruptive (or can be part of a cycle that leads to disruption.) My initial inclination is to let the ban stand; it's not a "black mark" against Benji, but rather a recognition that his presence on that article is causing more problems than it is worth. On the other hand, if another editor were to come to the article, and do the same sort of work Benji's been doing, Mr Sanchez' stream of OTRS requests would resume, with Benji crossed off and the new editor's name written in crayon. So this isn't about Benji, but about the material itself, which either belongs or does not belong in the article, regardless of Mr Sanchez' feelings. This means the only question for Benji is, "can you continue the edit the article while respecting our BLP, NPOV, V, etc requirements?" As far as OTRS is concerned, if Mr Sanchez' requests are valid, they should be respected; if not, they should be politely declined the first time, and ignored after that; he certainly doesn't get to dictate who edits the article about him. I can't imagine this is the first time someone has been persistent trying to get their way via OTRS; what's the usual way of dealing with repeat complainants? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• Thomas Basboll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) notified

On April 21, 2008, Raul654 topic banned me without warning, referring to the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions in the 9/11 area, and describing this edit as "horrendous POV-pushing" in the face of an alleged consensus that this version is the only one supported by policy (discussion at AE). I immediately appealed the ban. I believe that this is a content issue, not simply a question of implementing the NPOV policy (which I of course support). I also believe that the dispute is essentially about the style of the article (both versions make the same claims with slightly different emphasis). I had in any case discussed the edit in a civil fashion in advance, had conducted a straw poll (which supported my edit), and had indicated that I would not oppose a revert in the short term. Almost three weeks later, I am still waiting to hear the Committee's position, and Raul has not yet made a statement.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 has imposed a topic ban as sanctioned by ArbCom's recent ruling in the case on 9/11 conspiracy theories (see discussion at at AE). I do not consider myself a POV pusher (nor, it should go without saying, a conspiracy theorist or "truther"). I have devoted my time here (increasingly narrowly) as a good-faith single-purpose editor to articles related the collapse of the WTC, which interests me both from a technical, engineering point of view and as an episode in the philosophy, history and sociology of knowledge. I consider the WTC collapse article to be mainly an article on an engineering topic, and the controlled demolition hypothesis article to be mainly an article about a fringe hypothesis (comparable to, say, memory of water and, until recently, ball lightning, a phenomenon whose status is changing). I have edited them as such, in accordance with what I know, and based on (to my mind) reasonable interpretations of reliable sources.

I have behaved civily in all discussions, and was in this case implementing what I saw as an emerging consensus (from a week-long poll) in good faith, and explicitly noted that anyone could revert it if they thought I was jumping the gun [77]. Taking a longer view, my editing on these articles has been overwhelmingly accepted by consensus. The difference between the two versions being discussed in this particular case is very small. (This, for example, gives an indication of the difference between my proposal and Jehochman's; note that the bulk of my allegedly POV-pushing edit, namely, the merger of the overview section with the lead, has been preserved.) It is certainly a far cry from the sorts of claims that are normally associated with 9/11 CT POV-pushers. Moreover, I am willing to accept either of the two possible solutions. The purpose of the poll was to clearly identify the consensus in order to make it easier to maintain the page in the face of predictable edits.

Somewhat ironically, I had already explained this to Jehochman [78] before he lodged his complaint against my "horrendous POV pushing". I now, of course, understand why he didn't contribute to the poll. He seems to believe none of this, i.e., patient, civil ongoing discussion about the scientific status of the hypothesis, should be necessary. I look forward to hearing ArbCom's view on this matter.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Mongo has added a number of charges to the Tango Arbitration that are probably better dealt with here. It includes a characteristically false allegation[insinuation]: "Interestingly, during Basboll's hiatus from editing, User:Aude was able to get the disruption free period she needed to get 7 World Trade Center to featured level. I was able to help her with some copywriting issues. It remains the only 9/11 related article to achieve FA status. Basboll made numerous comments regarding the article upon his return to editing. Aude was also able to get Construction of the World Trade Center (a peripheral article) to FA status as well during Basboll's hiatus." Clearly this statement can only begin to make sense if I had actually worked on the articles that he rightly praises Aude's work on. Well, until my departure in May 2007, I had not edited them. I've actually checked back through my contributions. As far as I can tell I had not made a single edit to those articles before my break. It can hardly be in my absence that Aude was able to bring the 7 WTC article up to FA; there is simply no basis for identifying my hiatus with a "disruption free period" in this case. MONGO next suggests that, upon my return, I began to disrupt her work. He cites discussion threads that begin here. Notice that these threads conclude with agreement reached between Aude and I. The article was simply improved. By contrast, during my most recent absence, MONGO had four months to deal with a POV tag issue he insisted on leaving in, thereby ensuring that the article would fail a GA review after I had fixed a series shortcomings not related to CTs that had been identified by the sweeps reviewer. Nothing was done until, upon my return, I raised that as obviously the most pressing issue to deal with. I was immediately called a POV pusher and troll (the cause of what is now the Tango arbitration) and it was suggested that the section, after sitting quietly in the article for four months with a "neutrality disputed" tag, should just be deleted. Here, too, the situation has been resolved after lengthy discussions ... this time in MONGO's absence (block and retirement).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how AC judges my appeal, it will be useful to clarify the extent to which it is against policy to edit on the wrong side of this difference.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the debate, but there is no doubt that Thomas Basboll's presence in those articles, while generally not egregiously uncivil, has had the effect of inflaming disputes and extending debate on matters where there is clearly a strong agreement with a few prominent holdouts, Basboll being one of same. His opinions on 9/11 are definitely not mainstream, and tireless advocacy of non-mainstream positions is one of the things I consider to be a serious problem in Wikipedia right now, so I would be inclined to support Raul's call here. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Are you suggesting that he is "incivil" in a non-egregious way? On what grounds?
2. If there is "no doubt" that he inflames disputes please provide proofs about this.
3. Provide proofs also of "clearly strong agreement" where debates have been extended.
4. Personal opinions are completely irrelevant (and you would have to prove them too).
5. If "advocacy" is so big a problem why don't you provide proofs of advocacy in this case?
6. According to which policy your (unproved) description of the user would be enough for a ban?

Unless you will provide any supporting material yours is just a groundless personal attack.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOUP. Guy (Help!) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How is someone challenging your view of something you "consider to be a serious problem" and asking for concrete examples to support some fairly broad statements in any way comparable to a distraction tactic? I really don't see a problem with "extending debate" - no article is ever finished and available information always changes. Debate is necessary, and from what I've seen of this user (admittedly not a huge amount), he appears to debate in a relatively constructive manner. I know a lot of people don't agree with this, but I feel firmly that is important in any kind of collaborative project for exclusion to be the resort only when there is absolutely no other option. I have seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thomas is a supporter of certain fringe theories. His continued advocacy of those fringe theories in the face of multiple rejections, constitutes disruptive behaviour. Thomas is a perfectly nice fellow, he simply has this fringe view which he cannot bring himself to drop voluntarily. That does not make him evil, but it does make for a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

at the risk of being presumptuous, I'll reword this. I don't think Thomas holds the fringe view, or rather I presume he doesn't. However, he advocates its inclusion to the articles as if it were not a fringe view. This is very difficult to deal with. He is perfectly civil. There are others that advocate the fringe view that support him and make him feel as if inclusion is consensus. This is the problem in that continuous battles to include this material is not conducive to building the encyclopedia with high quality content. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether Thomas rather than you is right about the correct application of WP:UNDUE in the specific cases is a matter to be discussed in the talk page of the articles as required by the Wikipedia editorial process. You can't say that people are "a problem" just because you disagree with their opinions about content issues unless they don't follow the Wikipedia editorial process, which is not the case.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What you DHeyward and others are overlooking is that the edit that led to this ban was not a fringe view. What you are in effect saying here is that because he supports a fringe view then any edit he makes regardless of legitimacy is automatically rejected. This goes to the unanswered question I posed earlier. Was it the intention of Arbcom to stabilise the article by restricting editing to the “official” mainstream viewpoint to the exclusion of other minor but significant viewpoints as well as fringe viewpoints?. Wayne (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect on all accounts. Firstly, I don't view the topic ban as the result of one edit, rather a collection of a body of work that culminated in a final edit, i.e. the "last straw". This was after the arbcom ruling. Secondly, the whole article "Controlled Demilition Hypothesis..." is an article on a notable fringe theory. NPOV does not require that Wikipedia write the article as if this theory were accepted or that it must be written as if it were possible. Rather, the overwhelming scientific consensus view is taht this is a fringe conspriacy theory that has no merit in science or engineering and that it should be treated as such. The NPOV challenge is to present these facts about the hypothesis and not get confused with neutrally advocating the position. The facts are that it's 1) fringe 2) conspiracy theory and 3) overwhelmingly refuted. That's a neutral assessment of the hypothesis. The challenge for editors is to present those facts without advocating the theory and also to present it without disparaging the holders of this view. It is not NPOV to treat it as a legitmate theory. --DHeyward (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets clarify a few points. It was not a "final edit, i.e. the "last straw" but the first edit he made after the Arbcom. The edit did not support any fringe theory but in fact added a sentence which reduced the weight of fringe theories. This sentence was later replaced in the article the day after Thomas' edit was reverted and is still there. This means that the only part of his edit disputed was removing the words "911 conspiracy" from the first sentence and moving it to the second sentence where he expanded it by explaining it is fringe and not accepted. In his edit summary he even said that if you didn't agree with the edit, revert it. Basically a single minor edit of no real importance that had general support got an editor banned. Wayne (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I filed the arbitration enforcement request. Truthers have been trying to whitewash Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center for quite some time, and a variety of editors have been attempting to restore neutral point of view. Id est: [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] At some point people need to understand that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advancing fringe theories. The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Let the administrators do their work. User:Thomas Basboll's long contribution history shows three main types of contributions to Wikipedia: 1/ pushing a Truther POV, 2/ attacking MONGO, and 3/ engaging in various processes to support those agendas. We simply do not need single purpose policy violation accounts, no matter how polite they may be. Jehochman ^Talk 08:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't determine whether Bigfoot exists by polling Bigfoot believers. We follow what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 08:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do you speak abouth "truthers": can you prove anyone here is a truther?
2. Your opinion about what is the due weight to give to allegedly "fringe" theories is not relevant here, it must be decided by means of consensus.
3. Administrators have not the right to unilaterally decide what is the due weight and who did violate it. It's up to the wikipedia community by means of consensus. --Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the editor who has been sanctioned has made good-faith attempts to try to find common ground among two sides - one side who feels that a certain hypothesis is labelled as a conspiracy theory, and another who doesn't. It is irrespective that I am of the opinion that it should be labelled as a conspiracy theory, because this editor in conducting a straw poll, has identified it as a conspiracy theory - whether it is in the first sentence, or the second of the article - although, the second sentence did not give enough emphasis on this I feel.

Although straw polls do not determine consensus, there was some discussion. The editor who filed the Arb-enforcement request made no attempts to participate in the discussion until earlier today, despite being invited to by the editor over 5 days ago, and editing on the article during those 5 days. In his editing, he has in fact on several occasions quoted 'consensus', but because the very policy clearly outlines that consensus can change, he should have engaged in the current discussion.

I find that there is insufficient evidence (of the sanctioned user failing to adhere to the Wikipedia principles outlined) for a sanction to be imposed in this case. However, the editor should've "been counselled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines" as per the the remedy imposed by the ArbCom - I see none being given by the admin who imposed this sanction.

I am therefore of the opinion that there appear to be grounds for an appeal here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me an emotional decision, blocking an editor, citing one edit.

Raul654 first neglected to give any specific reasons, and later added one edit as "the reason". onetwothree

I think Raul misunderstands the ArbCom decision, and also misunderstands NPOV policy.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• at User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing he explaines why involved editors should engage in POV disputes to make sure that the commendable POV (the government does not lie) triumphs over the evil POV's. It is clear that Raul fails to understand how policy, by following its process, leads to good articles. In stead, he starts with "the truth" and sees editors who disagree with him as "the Problem".  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not edit the article and do not personally believe the CD theory. I do however participate in talk occasionally as I believe the CD theory should be treated fairly. Comparing the current version with Thomas' version shows a difference of less than half a sentence which is not particularly controversial and was made in good faith after discussion. If we compare Thomas' edit with the original version we see that the current version is now closer to his edit than was the original and in fact his is more critical of the theory than the original was.
There was no warning before banning and no reason given for the ban. The reasons eventually given were confusing and lacked substance. Jehochman says "We don't determine whether Bigfoot exists by polling Bigfoot believers." but this is a gross misrepresentation. The poll was of both supporters and opposition and was primarily a grammatical edit that implied no preference for any conclusion. If Jehochman equates his refusal to take part in the discussion as bias to Thomas' viewpoint then he has no one to blame but himself and Thomas should not be punished for his failure.
Given what I see I have to ask, why is Arbcom enforcement so strictly enforced that it equates to either a.) almost total control of the article by supporters of the official theory or b.) discourages neutral editors from participating? Was it the intention of Arbcom to stabilise the article by restricting editing to the “official” mainstream viewpoint to the exclusion of other minor but significant viewpoints as well as fringe viewpoints? Wayne (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration remedy states:

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)"

Raul654 is NOT an "uninvolved" administrator.

• Raul654 has edited 7 World Trade Center‎, one of the 9/11 articles. Raul654 edits show that he supports the Jehochman's position. [85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100]
• Raul654 deletes a fact tag on the sentence:

"The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage." stating "rv - well known fact" [101]

• Raul654's talk page comments on 7 World Trade Center‎ where he argues against those who support a controlled demolition. [102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109]
• Raul654 reverts 7 World Trade Center‎ then protects the page, in violation of Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools [110]

• This involved block is not a single incident either, Raul654 has a history of blocking editors he is edit warring with, in violation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes. See also this ANI.

Raul654's did not follow the arbcom guidelines, the arbitration remedy states:

"...if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to...amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators"

Raul654 did not warn Thomas before the block: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision".

The arbitration remedy states also:

"Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators"

Thomas Basboll used a "communal approach" in a straw poll. Jehochman lost the straw poll, which meant a majority of editors agreed with Thomas's POV. Instead of attempting to build consensus, Jehochman filed this Arbitration enforcement.

The seven edits which Jehochman uses as evidence to topic ban Thomas are as follows:

• Thomas "boldly" implementing the results of the straw poll. [111]
• Jehochman reverting Thomas, in an argument over one sentence. In both Jehochman and Thomas's revisions 9/11 conspiracy theories remains in the sentence. Jehochman is reverted by Pokipsy76. [112]
• Jehochman reverts anon 67.164.76.73, which has nothing to do with Thomas. [113]
• Jehochman reverts WillOakland, and then is reverted by 67.168.160.59. [114]
• MONGO reverts Apostle12. [115]
• Jehochman reverts Wowest who is reverted by Dscotese [116]
• Jehochman reverts Dscotese [117]

Only the first involves Thomas.

Raul based his ban on one Thomas edit which Jehochman complained about [118]

Jehochman's language shows that he is just as much a POV warrior as Thomas is:

• "Truthers"
• "tendentious group of editors"
• "horrendous POV pushing"
• "Truthers have been trying to whitewash the article for quite some time"
• "The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough."

POV warriors often:

1. label their opponents ("Truthers"),
2. use vivid adjectives ("horrendous") to describe their opponents,
3. make absolute statements ("Enough is enough").

Inclusionist (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only say that the Collapse of the World Trade Center article is vastly superior since the edits of April 22. Because of the vast amount of progress in the short amount of time, I have to support the article ban. This is now a proper article without huge WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and other problems. I have tried to edit this article prior to the enforcement action and endless discussion about non-reliable, fringe theories was counterproductive. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

After comparing the differences you claim make the article "vastly superior" I notice that apart from cosmetic edits the only real changes are the deletion of a NIST reference and a reference to the engineer Cherepanov that I am disputing. This dispute is exactly what I just said in my reply to you above....Because Cherepanov supports a fringe theory you deleted a claim he made that is not fringe and tacitly supported by other reliable sources. I also notice that the current version still contains almost all of the edits Thomas Basboll made before April 22. The more I see the more I feel Thomas is being penalised for his views rather than his editing. Wayne (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Probably it's worth being underlined that Thomas' views, expressed here on Wikipedia, are strictly on wiki-editing matters, like the one that editors should look carefully into what scientific and reliable sources say and report it accordingly, without WP:OR, or locking our heads onto mainstream media ("so that Internet not suck").

Why is this case so mostly ignored by admins? Please voice your opinions. salVNaut (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the tactics of User:DHeyward and the other deletionists for 3 years. They only one view on wikipedia: their own. The mask their POV attacks in acronyms and wikirules, but when all of their highbrow and lowbrow tactics are stripped away, you simply have a POV agenda, in which these users will do anything, and have done anything, to silence those who oppose their deletions. Inclusionist (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Before making the edit which motivated the ban [119] Thomas discussed it and apparently had an unanimous consensus involving people having usually different views[120]. If a good faith editor can be banned without any previous warning for an edit discussed and having unanimous consensus then nobody will ever feel free to make any edit whatsoever.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are certain areas I don't contribute to, or no longer contribute to on this project. The key reasons are based on several issues that I can elaborate on later if need be. To be brief, I believe I "hit the nail on the head" in regards to my response to one editor: This project was meant to be the "sum of all human knowledge." It was never meant to be a place where it becomes a soapbox for theories and ideas that someone decided use as a propaganda tool. Here's a good example that might help explain - You know, we have a Moon landing hoax article. Shall we ramrod this into the Apollo program and Moon landing articles to where we look like a website full of garbage? This is an encyclopedia. Everything has its place, and in a nutshell, that must be maintained. Anything beyond that becomes soapboxing, etc. [121] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's worth looking at the whole exchange [122] and the article talk page discussion it was about [123]. Notice that the noble sentiment JungleCat quotes himself for was originally expressed to support an editor who had exclaimed his wonderment that someone might "believe such crap" when the editor it was directed at had politely suggested he withdraw it. While calling someone's (alleged) beliefs "crap" may not directly violate the purpose of Wikipedia, it is surely a bit off the mark to quote the founding idea of Wikipedia to justify such insults?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it clear that I did not endorse any insult. [124] I am familiar with Thomas' editing habits from this RfC. [125] Toward the conclusion of that RfC, Thomas was asked very politely (with additional input also from myself) to consider looking into other areas of the project that might appeal to him. [126] [127]. As an SPA, he was topic banned from a specific area, and this was not a mistake. [128] [129] JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Morton attributed a belief to me that I do not hold. He also called it crap. I approached him on his talk page to ask him to withdraw the insult, which did not add anything constructive to the discussion about the article. He refused to withdraw it. You agreed with his position, and I noted that Morton was letting the insult stand. You said that your support for Morton "was not meant to add to any insult", then added some futher speculation about my beliefs, and suggested I might be soapboxing and violating policy. Morton rounds the whole thing off as follows: "You shovel it in, we muck it out." That was the end of it. To say that you "made it clear that you did not endorse any insult" is a bit peculiar. What you made clear is that you did not think I had grounds to take offense at having my ideas called "crap" since they actually are crap. To repeat: I do not hold the views Morton attributes to me. Those views, moreover, were not relevant since the source we were discussing also does not hold those views. "Your beliefs are crap" is certainly an insult in most real intellectual communities. To "not endorse" it would have been to agree with me in the situation we are discussing, not Morton.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are dodging the statement that is the relevant one. And quote: You seem determined to evangelize on behalf of these theories, so yes, it is relevant. We're supposed to be editing a neutral encyclopedia here, not one bent on promoting pseudo-scientific ideas. - MortonDevonshire 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC).[130] Morton's other wording I would have not used myself. I'll let the arbitration committee decide this whole issue if they choose to accept. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 15:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you should not have agreed with Morton. The thread in question was only about Morton's "other wording". I was asking him to strike it out if he didn't really mean it. He really meant it. In any case, I am not dodging that statement of his at all; I am denying it. I do not evangelize. Very little of what I "shovel in" ever gets "mucked out" because I do good work and it wins consensus. My editing seeks the neutral point of view, etc.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently you have crossed the line pertaining to a previous arbcom decision.[131] I’ll let you have the last word as I am not going to respond to you anymore here. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that appearance is what this appeal is about.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll state it as broad as one can. We've been watching this evolving for years, at this point in time we have European and Japanese parliaments discussing the severity and disturbing background of the issue, yet we fail to recognize such facts? Why is that? Why do we let these outrageous conspiracy theories thrive in here, posed by Aude and Mongo and these new-old accounts we have today? Thomas and Peter and then PTR and Morton and then others are all allowed to sock puppet on the issue while literary hundreds of free minded editors are kept out of the discussion without valid reason whatsoever. Do say, what do we see here in cycle after cycle? We see one group of editors with a very strong POV imposing hegemony on the article which is located on free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I don't see how this is acceptable. Take what's going on at this moment, we have utterly phony, even ridiculous, completely one sided one minded discussion about good article there, we have POV pushers pushing their POV while the rest of community is watching with dismay, locked away as we are locked away from Universe itself. I'll ask you, is this pattern recognizable in our reality? That event abolished some very basic freedoms and we are about to recognize it as such, thus (whether you're willing to accept it or not) leaving ourselves without some very basic tools. Those folks said: We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. Well I don't like this war and terror reality they've failed to make, and I for one will never ever forgive the mass murder of American citizens which was made for self gain. That said, imo, and as far as I've seen in past time, Thomas repeatedly endured personal attacks; he stood firmly and didn't loose his temper even at times when he faced full barrages of Mongo's and Morton's incivility. I don't see how he deserved this ban, if he deserved anything it would be a star for dealing with vandals, who are, at last, recognized as such by a community much wider than Wikipedia. Finally, I'll point out something what should be clear to anyone by now. When it comes to 9/11 discussions, what recent years showed is the fact that so called mainstream account failed to enter mainstream some time ago, whether in here, or out there, we're facing with censorship of tremendous magnitude. Whether we recognize it or not, we are now living in 1984. You can take our own experience and you'll understand why there is no RS for whole plethora of undeniable and undeniably disturbing facts. In the end, and regardless of the decision on this particular issue, I'd like to ask the administrators one question, so we may know where will we go, Jimbo may chip in as well.

Whose project is this? Who owns the 9/11 Article? Is it the government or its people? Thanks. Tachyonbursts (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Tachyonbursts is an editor with less than 500 edits. Inclusionist (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Further note: User:Tachyonbursts has been indef blocked since 4 May 2008. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

* Recuse per my statements in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

• Pokipsy76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

I would ask the Arbcom to clarify this points:

1. Area of conflict: According to the arbcom remedies the "discretionary sanctions" can be delivered to any editor "working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)". I think that the expression "which relates" leave the door open to some interpretations, so I will make two questions to have a clearer understanding:
   1. What if an editor is not working in any article but makes a comment about other admins/users actions (made within the the area of conflict) on a user talk page or on the AN pages? Do "discretionary sanctions" can still be made if an admin (on his or her own discretion) decide for example that the criticism is "disruptive"?
   2. Suppose that someone is editing possibly related articles like George W Bush or Conspiracy theory but is adding or discussing informations about events unrelated to 9/11. Can he/her be "discretionarily sanctioned" or just standard wikipedia rules hold?
2. Topic bans: What if a person who is "topic banned" make the first or the second kind of edit described above? Would it be a violation of the "topic ban"?
3. Retroactivity?: Can the discretionary sanctions be "retroactive" and be delivered if an admin think that a user has been "disruptive" in any time prior to the arbcom decision? If it is so how can this be reconciled with the statement "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision"?
4. Terror: Considering:
   • the fact that the motivations given to justify the "discretionary" bans include
     • edits reflecting a consensus on the talk pages but nevertheless alleged to be "tendentious" by admins: [132] [133]
     • possibly good faith arguments on the talk pages alleged to be "tendentious stonewalling" by admins [134]
   • the lack of any prior warning before heavy sanctions like topic bans [135] [136] [137]
   • threats to people accused of being "tendentious" or "wikilawyering" because they are questioning the decision of the admins [138][139] [140]

These elements all together contribute to create an atmosphere when apparently anyone can legitimately be afraid of being suddenly punished for whatever he does and whatever he says: it seems indeed that almost any action or statement could be in principle be viewed as "tendentious" according to the opinion of this or that admin (even when supported by the consensus). Personally I don't even feel free to express my opinion in talk pages devoted to discussing these sanctions. Given this situation I ask the arbcom if they consider this atmosphere to be the desired result of their remedy. If it is not the case I ask the arbcom which kind of solution can be found.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes regarding the response by Sam Blacketer:

Probably I need to be more clear about point 4: I am not actually disputing any procedure or any decision. I am asking a completely different kind of question: assuming that everything I listed above is formally correct (and therefore this atmosphere of constant danger for whatever one does/says is formally legitimated) do the arbitrators consider this atmosphere to be the desired result of the proposed remedy?

Thank you for your reply.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comments are here.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment to the reply by User:Thebainer:

I have already pointed out and stressed how my question on point 4 was not considered by Sam (and possibly misinterpreted whence the clarification above) and this other reply seems to still deliberately ignore this issue. I'll try to ask this even more explicitely: dear arbitrator

1. Do you see that nobody can feel free to make any edit because even edits supported by consensus resulted in a ban just for disagreement about the content?
2. Do you like this situation?
3. Is this exactly what you wanted to achieve?

Thank you very mych for your replies (assuming there will ever be any!).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment [to JzG] - It's not honest to reply "yes" to my question and to continue describing something different from what my question was asking. If you don't want to address my question you don't have to, but please don't try to make it say what it is not saying.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [moved here by Jehochman ^Talk]

• I would like to know if quoting the 9/11 Commission is to be seen as tenditious editing.

(I believe it is important to include some quotes of that Commission's work into the article. I feel that omitting these quotations is biasing the article to a pro-government viewpoint. I had thought the WP:NPOV policy was very clear on representing viewpoints, and actually, I can hardly believe we are still having these discussions. An uninvolved admin never saw why the A-gang admins were blocking such edits, but ofcourse he did not want to upset his peers.)

Yours faithfully,

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 17:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Must every remedy imposed over 9/11 Truth Movement lobbying be appealed to this board? Jehochman ^Talk 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This request appears to be compelling evidence that the remedies of the arbitration case are sound and are being applied to good effect. The only clarification required, is to clarify that yes, the intention was indeed to control disruptive and tendentious editing of the kinds that it appears are being restricted here. Good job by the admins involved. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• My individual views rather than a response on behalf of the committee:

1.1: If comments on admin actions extend to discussions of whether individual admins or groups of them are trying to affect article content rather than acting neutrally, then those editors who make them are included within the definition of 'working in the area of conflict'. Admins should not however judge whether criticisms of their own actions are disruptive.

1.2: If the edits do not relate to 11 September 2001 then they are not covered by discretionary sanctions. Advice can be sought on the talk page, or on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, to get a consensus about whether this is the case.

2: As above, the topic bans are limited to edits relating to 11 September 2001, but advice should be sought if there is a possible dispute about it.

3: Editing behaviour prior to the final decision in the case is relevant in determining whether an editor has been disruptive, but the warning admin should allow the user a chance to demonstrate that their behaviour has changed.

4: The key phrase in the decision is that it applies to those who fail "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", which is to provide a high-quality encyclopaedia which is neutral point of view and based on reliable sources. Consensus on talk pages cannot overrule the purpose of Wikipedia. The notification requirements were complied with in all three cases you link to. Instead of trying to dispute the procedure lying behind decisions, or attacking the admins who have imposed them, editors unhappy with restrictions should look at the aspects of their own behaviour which have provoked them, and see if they can change it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with what Sam has said, though I would add that administrators working in this area should seek advice from their fellow administrators liberally, and should work through the arbitration enforcement page as much as possible. Reviewing briefly the list of sanctions applied, there seems to be good use of the arbitration enforcement page so far. --bainer (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Sam and Bainer here; the Arbitration enforcement system seems to be working as intended. James F. (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)