Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 17

---

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

• N/A

This is just a reminder that the evidence page is still deleted. As this is pretty much a gross deviation from the norm, and as the last statement about it was Flonight's over a week ago, I figured it was time to go here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing per User_talk:FloNight#RFAR — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• As I replied to a query on my user talk page, I asked on ArbCom and got good replies about the reason. I'm still looking into the situation so I can make a good choice about what to include in the undeleted version. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

---

---

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

• Cberlet [1]
• Will Beback [2] (Has been active in helping enforce the case's rulings.)
• Post at relevant ANI thread [3] [4]
• Georgewilliamherbert [5]

The original Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 case contained specific findings against only two editors: Herschelkrustofsky and SlimVirgin. A post-decision motion [6], passed nine months ago, however, appears to expand the scope of the case to include any behavior exhibited by anyone that violates WP:NOR, WP:POV, or WP:BLP with regard to the LaRouche articles. The exact verbiage in the passed motion is:

The findings of fact of the original decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision, closed in September 2004, referred to two problematic behaviours:

• a pattern of adding original material, not an editor's own, but that of Lyndon LaRouche, to Wikipedia articles,
• a pattern of political advocacy and propaganda advancing the viewpoints of Lyndon LaRouche and his political movement.

The Arbitration Committee affirms that editor behaviour amounting to such patterns is not accepted on Wikipedia. Administrators should draw the attention of editors to these standing principles, which should be known by any editor engaging closely in LaRouche-related articles. After due warning, explanation, and reference to the basic unacceptability of POV pushing on Wikipedia, proportionate blocks may be applied by administrators. Cases of difficulty may be referred directly to the Committee for clarification.

It is also pointed out that the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement.

Passed 5 to 2, 17:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If my interpretation of this ruling is correct, then should the recent block of Cberlet [7] for violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPA at Views of Lyndon LaRouche with this [8] remark on the article's talk page be annotated in the log of blocks and bans for this case? And, by extension, any other editors who have been blocked for violating these policies and guidelines in a similar manner to CBerlet in LaRouche-related articles should also have had their blocks annotated? Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for this. The original ArbCom case closed over two years ago. The only remedies concerned HK and his sockpuppets. Those blocks were logged because they had an escalation clause. Cberlet was an innocent party. Why would this block be logged - what purpose would it serve?

While we're on this topic, we might as well get a determination about the applicability of this motion to current editors. In particular, Polly Hedra (talk · contribs), who posted this message.[9] I simply deleted it as unhelpful and left a message on the user's talk page. However, since this matter is being contested it's worth making sure that remedies are applied evenly. The user is unremorseful.[10] As for being potential sock puppets of HK, there are several editors whose edits are very similar to HK's in that they only edit LaRouche-related articles and articles that LaRouche has a strong POV about, and they consistently promote that POV. Due to HK's clever puppet mastering (see the first RfAr), it is probably impossible to find them using Checkuser, and so they can only be determined by behavior.

FWIW, I received notes from Cberlet asking that the biography of Chip Berlet be deleted, and apparently signalling his intention to leave the project.[11][12] I'd guess that being punished while those who've baited him are unpunished might be a cause.

It seems a bit self-serving to call Polly Hedra's message on Will's talk page "unremorseful." She calls attention to the fact that Will deleted her comment on the LaRouche talk page, while allowing a far more inflammatory comment [13] by Cberlet to stand. This does not indicate any particular lack of remorse, but rather calls attention to a double standard which has been a continuing problem.

I also have real concerns about Will's proposal that editors be banned for holding a suspicious POV, in lieu of actual Checkuser evidence. Based on Will's long history of partisanship in LaRouche-related content disputes, I have difficulty believing that this proposal is motivated by nothing more than a desire to protect the project from sockpuppets. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The meme to the effect that "everybody expressing similar opinions to a banned user should be banned too" came into play frequently in the whole Mantanmoreland vs. WordBomb saga, and one would hope it had been discredited by now. This issue needs to be pursued in a "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander" manner with no special consideration, pro or con, being given to either side based on their having a more powerful circle of friends here. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Is there a way for our established users to avoid name calling when they are confronted to difficult situations? Incivility (in all forms) has never been something constructive at all. We can do better than that and most people do not necessarily need to use such a language in order to prove something they believe is right. But logging it just for the sake of logging it is not a solution. It is rather an obstacle. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• The motion merely affirmed that, while way back in 2004 it may not have been entirely clear that policies like no original research and neutral point of view were ordinarily enforceable without going so far as having an arbitration case (for interest, here is a contemporary revision of NOR, and here's one of NPOV), by 2007 those principles had long since passed in to the general corpus of policy, and the existence of special remedies in this subject area in no way meant that general policy did not also apply. --bainer (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• This strikes me as petty and unnecessary. As per FayssalF, this is unhelpful; and per bainer, normal policy is handling these issues just as well anyway. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

---

---

---

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

• User:Scott Free
• User:Tenebrae

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATenebrae&diff=228478711&oldid=228228599

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema

I have a question concerning a statement by Tenebrae -

...the version largely written by Scott Free's former identity, Skyelarke, which was disallowed by both RfC consensus and a lengthy Arbitration.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=226555068&oldid=215860249

Extra info - A similar statement was made here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=228308285&oldid=228307747

My question would be is the statement correct? Does the Arbitration ruling state that content contained in previous versions are not allowed to be integrated into the current article? I'm not clear about the consensus aspect, but my understanding is that of the closing arbitrator -

'(Referring to 'Consensus can change') ...This is certainly a legitimate and well-recognized principle. I don't know that it's applicable to this case because before the article was protected, it's not clear there was a consensus between the two versions, one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FJohn_Buscema%2FWorkshop&diff=181873872&oldid=181781354

I ask this because my understanding of the situation is that discussion on content had been interrupted (with about 30 or so referenced passages, having arrived after the RfC in question, left more or less incompletly discussed) due to conduct and civility issues that required arbitration. Following the Arbitration, which issued a decision aimed at resolving the dispute, in theory discussion could continue, addressing the unresolved content questions. So I guess my second question would be: Can I make edits to the article (within reason) that aim at reintegrating some or all of the 30 or so unresolved referenced passages?

Right now, I feel that if I should make edits to the article in that spirit, judging by the statement (which has been made in various forms several times), I would get a reply to the effect of 'the content being presented has been disallowed by RfC and an Arbitration ruling'.

In good faith,

--Scott Free (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding respecting post-arb consensus - That's also a question I have - What if no clear consensus emerges from the limbo the article was in? I did do a RfC to try and address this, but there was little in terms of comments on the specific issue of the previous disputed (and I say largely unresolved) content - the RfC ended up being pretty inconclusive aside from certain generalities about image use.

--Scott Free (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Question to GRBerry - Just to clarify -had you or have you read Tenebrae's first statement in the Arb Enforce request? (Which is the same as the diff provided here above) I ask because your closing statement seemed to indicate that you might not have. (That was partially a mistake on my part, as it wasn't included in the green area of the diff, it was just above it.) (Although this clarification request isn't a direct reaction to your admin action - the statement is fairly typical of the editor and I was planning on making a clarification request on this sooner or later.)

--Scott Free (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer - I can see how reverting a paragraph wholesale would be innapropriate - I was thinking of taking the 30 or so passages individually and reintegrating them into the current version, rewording as required (they are all fairly short sentence fragments, I think, spread out fairly evenly throughout the entire article) - either one at a time or one section at a time. The reference sources are the same as the ones already used in the article. However, content-wise, it would still be the same content that Tenebrae is, I gather, strongly opposed to and will most likely delete most of them. Most likely, I would probably end up making a request for comment, to get additional feedback. Would this be acceptable?

I think in three cases, Tenebrae had removed the reference tag and kept the text, stating that references weren't necessary for them - Post-arb, another editor removed the phrases for reason of lack of reference. In those cases, I would restore the 3 phrases and include the corresponding previously deleted reference tags.

Another question would be : Would it be acceptable for me to submit this article to a Peer Review process?

--Scott Free (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can go on the John Buscema page and see Scott Free's disruptiveness even when editors besides myself try to dissuade him from continuing to promote his highly POV, often non-MOS, hagiographic fan page with over a dozen often decorative images. He was barred from editing the page for three months, and his obsessiveness over the page got him another month tacked on.

Please: Go read the lengthy Arbitration log, and the months of discussion that went on before and, now, afterward. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've tried, having made only non-controversial and minor edits and not having touched the article otherwise.

It might be helpful to read these two new related, closed discussions on the Admin Noticeboard, of which I've only now become aware, in which other editors and admins have addressed Scott Free's continuing disruptions and obsessive behavior: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#John Buscema and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Addenda to John Buscema. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a recent WP:AE thread posted by Scott Free, which I closed after 5 days had gone by. It was clear to me that it did not merit administrative action, and no other reviewer had suggested that use of tools was appropriate. During that thread it was discovered that the external link was to a out of date mirror of our article, and it looked due to lack of further dispute over the link like that would lead to consensus about it. This thread is now archived here. A followup thread, attended to by Shell Kinney, is still on WP:AE but will archive to archive 24 shortly. An even earlier related thread is here. No other WP:AE activity I'm aware of is relevant. GRBerry 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The remedies in the case said nothing whatsoever about the content of the article; rather, they require that after your topic ban expired, both of you "respect consensus developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included". Does your material respect the consensus that developed? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The terms of the arbitration case are that you have to respect the basic structure, so simply restoring the same paragraphs that were previously being objected to would not be respecting the structure but reverting to the previous structure. The external link to Nationmaster is clearly inappropriate. If you are adding reliable source references to what it already in the article, or making additions to explain existing material, then that is quite acceptable. Meanwhile I hope other editors will continue to assume good faith on your contributions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Initiated by - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} at 09:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Jamesontai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jiuguang Wang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJiuguang_Wang&diff=232283776&oldid=232275602
• (Cannot let Julie Dancer know about this ArbCom since I'm not an admin, so I cannot unprotect the page to issue a talk page notice)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• N/A (User:Julie Dancer is a blocked user)

I was called into the Security Department at Florida Institute of Technology (equiv. to university police) regarding an email sent to my university’s President’s Office by User:Julie Dancer (blocked user). The email accused me of stalking and attempting to pick up women via Wikipedia. Also accused me of wrongdoing on the AfD as well as asking the Security Department to look into my records.

As the former VP of Student Government, I know the Director of Security personally, so he knows that I’m not that kind of person. (That, and I have a girlfriend) However, I still need to answer to the President’s Office regarding this email. I understand that off-wiki stalking cannot be controlled by the foundation, but at this point, I just need someone higher up to help me clear my name. You may review my contribs, I have over 9500+ edits on the en-wiki and I have not been blocked for any reason.

Also worth noting, I believe User:Julie Dancer also sent an identical email to User:Jiuguang Wang’s university (Georgia Tech). I’m not sure if anything was done there, since I don’t know the user in real life. However, I believe the email did have a gatech.edu on the recipient’s list.

Any assistance ArbCom can offer will be greatly appreciated. I thank the committee in advance for reviewing this for me and I apologize if I did not file a dispute resolution first, since the user has already been blocked, there was no real point to file a dispute resolution with a blocked user.

The following are a handful of links regarding AN/I, SSP, and AfD of this issue.

• AfD: AFD
• AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive459#User:Julie_Dancer.2C repeated personal attack and harrassment
• SSP: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Julie Dancer

- Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 09:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

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

---

---

Could I have my restriction on editing BLPs lifted, please? I asked about two months ago, and someone else asked a month or two before that. Happy to answer any questions. Privatemusings (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

reply to Sam... yeah, I know I haven't always exactly made the most sensible 'keep your head down' choices - I guess my head's stuck somewhere! - I see Daniel's suggestions made the policy after a time, which is great - and I totally understand that the reward board thing might have touched a nerve... on the other hand.. it was kinda supposed to, and I'm glad to have maybe raised a smile here or there. I've tried to be consistent in criticising the system, not the people (I do think the arbcom is full of outstanding people, but is singularly useless as a body) - and would like to edit unencumbered if at all possible. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ps. your comment is somewhat non-committal (probably intentionally, so sorry for being dense...) - would you mind saying 'yup, the restriction can be lifted'? If you think otherwise, there's no need to say anything ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

John's suggestion seems sensible to me, for what that's worth. I guess the alternative would be to see Av and the arbs back here in a month or two? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

< I see this is sort of spread across the wiki in some ways - I've been loathe to respond at the AN page because I'm not sure it would help (though I would like to respond to a few points!) - but it may be timely for me to make a note here. A recommendation in a previous request for this restriction to be lifted was that I seek out a mentor, and I was glad User:Lar agreed to wear the hat a fair while ago. I sought his, and others' advice at this page (which I presume you chaps may have seen before commenting?) - further to this approach, I note John's proposal below, and I see Nonvocalscream, and Durova have also kindly offered to lend a hand. Hopefully the arbcom may see some merit in at least one of these useful suggestions! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)I'm very happy that the community chooses to discuss this, and support that process... it's good to talk...

per comment below - I should reiterate that I'm very happy with Lar being my 'official' mentor - I'm unsure to be honest exactly how the 'official' and 'unofficial' roles may pan out - in particular I'd also like to thank User:Jayvdb for his help and advice over the last month or so, and repeat what I mentioned at my mentoring page ("I'd actually like to be mentored by you, wiki reader - whomever you may be") - if the arb.s have any other suggestions, instructions or ideas I'm happy to try anything else as well... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)anyone at all should feel free to ask questions, make suggestions or just generally hang out at eith my mentoring page, or talk page anytime! I have tea!

I have no thoughts as to whether the restriction should be lifted at this time, as I'm unfamiliar with the details of the original case, but I think using this as a reason to leave a restriction on editing BLPs in place is a little nonsensical (and could come across as spiteful). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I've commented in each one of these, why upset the streak?

The BLP restriction was imposed because of actual problematic editing by privatemusings on BLPs. If the restriction is to be continued, it should be because there is still a concern that his editing of BLPs may still be problematic. I, personally, see no basis for the belief that this is true. His editing of the ArbCom policy page was presumptuous, and not something I would have done - on the other hand, no similar flair for the dramatic has been demonstrated on contentious articles (that I'm aware of).

Further, regarding his post on the reward board. To be blunt, the gears of ArbCom have ground to halt everywhere except in accepting new cases. You have a slate of important cases to decide, cases where the parties and the community are ill served by interminable delays. If you are hopelessly deadlocked and unable to come to a conclusion between you, admit that and dismiss the case. You need to set a deadline for these cases where you haven't come to an easy conclusion, so that debate does not rage on forever until everyone has lost the plot. Privatemusings' frustration, and that of many others, is understandable - you should not take his tweaking your nose amiss when you are, in fact, not performing to expectations. Avruch ^T 20:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And if that sounds a bit harsh, apologies... I have a great deal of respect, individually, for almost all of the arbitrators (a couple I haven't seen them do enough to form an opinion...) - but I do think that, as a whole, you've become a bit dysfunctional lately. I would hope that in a situation where it is unclear if a restriction is necessary, you would take the conservative route and restore full privileges. Avruch ^T 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose a different restriction.

“

For three months, PM must outline all intended BLP editing at his DIY garden, with each BLP raised as a new section, and recieve confirmation from any admin to proceed prior to touching any BLP or BLP talk page.

”

A number of admins and others are keeping an eye on that page, and I am sure that PM will find ways of enticing us or others to keep up. If he gets too annoying, and nobody helps him, at least he will have created a nice list of troubled BLP articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

In case it needs to be said, I've been running around madly in the garden doing my masters bidding, and I am pleased to inform you all that the brambles are well advertised and the path is wide enough for four abreast. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll just parrot what Sarcasticidealist said above-- I won't argue whether the restriction should be lifted, but I absolutely applaud PM's use of the charity fundraiser. There's widespread sentiment that Arbcom's sort of stuck in the mud on this one, and there have been widespread thoughts on how to respond to that. Most of those thoughts have not been pretty-- I've heard "Make a no-confidence motion on Arbcom", I've heard "move that the case be deleted", I've heard "move that arbcom as whole be deleted". I've even heard "Form a citizen's 'emergency acting arbcom'" to try the case. (none of these ideas do I support, I just mention them to give context).

By contrast, PM's charity fundraiser is a 100% positive way to try to gently encourage things. It's far less negative than the other suggestions, it has precedents (in that we often do little fundraisers for other ways of improving the project), and although PM himself of course has views about what the outcome of the case should be, he had the wisdom to carefully craft his fundraiser so that it not tied to any specific outcome-- all it asks is that the case take less than four months from start to finish--- a very reasonable goal to encourage.

Do what you will about the BLP restriction-- there are plenty of good reasons to argue the restriction shouldn't be lifted. But the charity fundraiser is not one of those reasons. PM should be proud of that one-- I know I would be if I had thought it up. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait. From the arb comments let me see if I play this one out correctly. What does PM edits to the arb pages have anything to do with his BLP restriction? This is the message I get "criticize arbcom, and we will keep you restricted". Do I understand that because he criticized the arbitration committee, he can not have his restriction lifted? This seems wrong. Can the arbitrators clarify?

Disclosure: I vocally supported restricting PM during the case. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum: Do you think that I don't know the ramifications of his BLP editing in the past, I'm the one who blocked the editor and participated in the arbitration. Do you think I would be advocating for lifting his restriction if I knew the risk still existed? Arbitrators, I was there. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Barberio: You ask to much. Resignation is not called for. You use a cannon ball to kill a mosquito. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think I rather like the idea of Lar and Durova mentorship. I think if the committee is amenable, this will work. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty silly to use "disruption" to ArbCom pages as examples.

I also suspect that NonvocalScream is lying when he says he "vocally" supported restricting PM. --NE2 07:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

link NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, so you hadn't lost your voice yet. That makes a lot more sense. --NE2 05:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NVS - this is disgraceful. But, if you're going to insist on making the community do your jobs for you... --Random832 (contribs) 07:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is one of judgment; I don't really see why it matters where the display of questionable judgment was. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC) - Let me spell this out for you: When nobody but you thinks that they are in fact displays of questionable judgment AND the purported displays you have cited as examples of bad judgment are both actually instances of criticism of YOUR actions, I think it's not out of line for the community to request - or even demand - examples that you are not inherently biased in evaluating. --Random832 (contribs) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I support Durova's proposal. --Random832 (contribs) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some Members of the Arbitration Committee have commented that they are upholding this solely because of Privatemusings' public comments about their behaviour, and a well intentioned attempt to alter Arbitration Policy which was reverted and which revert Privatemusings' accepted.

I think those Arbitration Committee have made a grave error. Community consensus seems to agree. It does seem like the community has expressed a lack of confidence in the Committee.

I ask that the members who made those inappropriate comments resign. --Barberio (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

ps. It is not on this incident alone that I ask for your resignations. This incident is simply the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. You were on notice that the community wasn't happy with how things are working, but just seem to shrug of any criticism and continue to act inappropriately. --Barberio (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

With respect for Sam Blacketer's concerns, I'll offer a compromise proposal: a temporary replacement of Privatemusings's current sanction with mentorship. The Committee would review after 90 days. At any time, if serious concerns arise, any single member of the Committee could reinstate full sanctions as an emergency measure.

I've had pretty good luck mentoring Jaakobou in the Israeli-Palestinian disputes: Jaakobou has earned 3 featured credits and 4 DYKs and has been blocked only once in the last eight months. During Privatemusings's ban from Wikipedia I mentored him on Commons where he made useful non-controversial contributions. Privatemusings and I have a good rapport through Not the Wikipedia Weekly collaboration. He's polite and means well, and with a little guidance and experience in mainspace he may do all right.

Privatemusings tells me he's amenable to this proposal. I hope the Committee considers it. with respect and good wishes, Durova^Charge! 04:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dual mentorship would be fine with me. And with regard to Lar's link (a bit off topic in the present context), I received numerous thanks for timely humor and exactly one concern, which I took seriously. Had there been others I would certainly have taken it down. With respect, the present situation would be best helped with a focused and calm solution. Durova^Charge! 06:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could we amend this to a troika with Jayvdb? (Whether or not he's not included formally, I'd be glad to collaborate with him as a comentor). Best, Durova^Charge! 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings already has a mentor. He asked me to be his informal mentor some time ago and I've been giving him on and offline guidance, as I think others have as well. If he wants to change mentors, that's fine by me, as I haven't been all that verbose in my guidance.

But, and with all respect due Durova here, I'm not sure that I agree she's the absolute most ideal mentor that PM could find. The issue with PM's restriction not being lifted seems to be a matter of judgement calls (when not to say things and what sort of things to say when). Regrettably, and again with the deepest respect for the many sound contributions Durova has made, I feel I must point out I'm not sure that her judgement is always completely sound, and I offer FT2's head on a platter as a pointer to something that I imagine raised more than a few eyebrows as to appropriateness and tastefulness at the time. Perhaps a committee of mentors might be an approach? ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Durova's reply to me (and in reply to Fayssal's comment as well)... yes I really do have concerns about Durova as sole mentor. I think it would end badly, although not because she doesn't mean well. Given this [14] I think it's fair to say I'm not the only one who has been mentoring, and in fact if you review the Garden page, you'll find Jayvdb is more active than I. I contacted him offline to seek agreement before proposing the following: That it be 3 people (avoids ties) and that one of the people be Jayvdb. I think most people know that Jayvdb has a very deft touch. If the other two are Durova and me that's fine by me... ++Lar: t/c 11:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see arbs voting on a motion... I would like to clarify that my participation was assuming Jayvdb would be included, so there would be 3 mentors (breaking ties if any should arise). Can we please get the motion clarified to reflect that? Not to put too fine a point on it but I think it's rather important, and he's already been participating (since back when I first agreed to mentor PM after he asked me)... thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The proposal for superseding Privatemusings' restriction with a mentorship program, adopting Lar, Jayvdb, and Durova as the recognised mentors, seems to be the most universally beneficial course of action this thread could sent the matter down. To that end, I propose the following decision:

Begin proposed decision.

4) Remedy two of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings is vacated. In its place, Privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned three Committee-approved mentors, who will be asked to assist Privatemusings in understanding and following policy, and improving as a contributor, to such a level where continued sanctions will not be necessary. The Committee will review this arrangement at its discretion in the future.

End proposed decision.

As a brief additional note, I do not share the concerns over Durova's judgement expressed above. However, I do believe that the more hands to guide Privatemusings here, the better, and providing for the three editors aforementioned to serve as mentors will allow the unique assets each would bring to this arrangement to be taken advantage of.

Regards, Anthøny 03:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings has gone to great lengths in various forums to tell the world that there was nothing wrong with his use of multiple accounts, and nothing wrong with his edits. He violated the prohibition on editing BLPs almost immediately his ban expired. I do not think that this augurs well. I think PM is a nice guy but has seriously failed to understand just how sensitive BLPs are and how important WP:BLP is as a policy. His edits to the di Stefano article were spectacularly ill-judged. I believe that much of the support for PM comes fomr the fact that he is a very nice guy, but ignores the fact that (a) he has never to my knowledge acknowledged that he did wrong by his use of multiple accounts and (b) that his editing of BLPs was careless to a fault. He has violated the terms of his restriction, and that, I think, is a very good reason not to even think about lifting it yet. And that's before we get to the fact that he's been agitating about the di Stefano article again. There really should be a WP:TENFOOTPOLE policy for that one. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally think Privatemusings has grown a lot since the restrictions are imposed, and it is time, at least, to give him a trial without his bonds. However, if this is not going to happen, I think a mentorship program followed by review will be to the benefit of everyone with little to no drawbacks. In any case, I think some kind of action and absolution is required here, whatever form that may come in. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Recuse. I have prior involvement with Privatemusings, although outside of the scope of this case. Anthøny 03:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not a clerk, but this seemed the best place to put this note (apologies if it wasn't really needed), which is a reminder that if the restriction is lifted, then Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (which I was reading recently) will need updating, as well as the case pages. Carcharoth (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'll let you into a secret. Several times recently I've been thinking of suggesting removing the restriction, but then you've done something like this or this and I decide that my time might be more productively used elsewhere. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Not comfortable lifting the restrictions at this time. Your continued lack of good judgment in some instances and as well as pushing the point in others, does not reassure me that you should be editing BLP articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Privatemusings chose the timing of this request. Doing something controversial on ArbCom related pages a few days before asking for a review shows a general lack of clue and adds to my reluctance to drop the restriction. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm with Flo and Sam on this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue is one of judgment; I don't really see why it matters where the display of questionable judgment was. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Durova's proposal is satisfactory to me. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
      • There's nothing stopping Privatemusings from asking more people to join with Durova and Lar here, but as far as "voting" is concerned, if the two of you disagree on some detail, then it's probably over a principle worth discussing more broadly anyway. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have no problem in seeing user:Privatemusings editing BLP articles under mentorship for a while. Many positive steps have been taken by this user lately but I'd prefer him editing with the help of a mentor for three months or so... a "walk on a path in a garden" may be the right walk. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Lar, you can adopt a dual mentorship model if you really have concerns regarding Durova's mentorship. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Mentorship, either single or dual, looks fine to me; I have no problems lifting the sanctions pursuant to that. Kirill ^(prof) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Happy with dual mentorship, but not with single-person mentorship (in principle). Should we move to a variance? James F. (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• I support lifting the sanctions. Paul August ☎ 16:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Remedy 2 ("Privatemusings restricted") of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings is lifted.
2. Solely for the matter of editing biographies of living persons, Privatemusings is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova.
3. If no issues arise, the mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion.

There are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

1. Support. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Support adding Jayvdb also. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   Noted my support for Jayvdb as additional mentor. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Support. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

   I support adding Jayvdb as a mentor. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

4. Support Paul August ☎ 01:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   I support adding Jayvdb as a mentor. Paul August ☎ 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

   I second NYB's "advice". Paul August ☎ 02:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Support (including the addendum), but caveated with the very strong advice that Privatemusings use good judgment and avoid the more highly controversial BLPs such as Giovanni di Stefano as he begins to step back into this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
6. Support as presently written. --bainer (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Kirill ^(prof) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

---

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

• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

This page is presumably meant to stand for all time. As it is effectively new policy, I would request that it be declared a {{howto}}, {{guideline}}, or {{policy}}, and have the arbcom's explicit approval of it being treated like any other policy, e.g. it may be edited, adapted, or, (in extreme cases), voted down by the community?

This is based on two bits of logic: Editing and improving is the Wiki way; having a policy page noone could edit, and having this page "fixed" for all time with whatever the Arbcom came up with in a few days' discussion goes against this. Secondly, it's basic five pillars logic: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules, besides the five general principles presented here."

I also feel this change would remove most of the controversy surrounding this case.

Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz: User:RegenerateThis, one of the Arbcom clerks, claims that any changes to WP:BLPSE requires appeal to arbcom: Wikipedia_talk:BLPSE#Policies_must_be_editable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clerk note: User:RegenerateThis is not an Arbcom clerk. — Coren ^(talk) 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

As in the previous request for clarification, I don't see how the response would be different - no, this is a remedy (not a new policy/guideline), and no, it cannot be voted down by the community. Basically, an area of the encyclopedia is now under a type of discretionary-sanctions-remedy - the mere fact that it applies to a wider area, or has more specific requirements (such as, in terms of logging) does not change the effect of the remedy. Persistently insisting it is new policy or against Wikipedia norms does not make it so.

The only real controversy here, I think, is the same sort that was experienced when discretionary sanctions were enacted for the first time by the Committee. But even then, I wonder how/why it is that much of the community have, particularly in recent times, come to favour the discretionary sanctions type remedies for areas constantly encountering problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If Shoemaker could specify which page he is referring to, we have WP:BLPLOG and WP:BLPSE. One, WP:BLPLOG was created by an arbcom decision, so presumably, they own that page, the other WP:BLPSE was created by the community to discuss how it views WP:BLPLOG, so I'm not sure it needs any other tags. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, well I think Tony was de-clerked, so he probably shouldn't be considered a binding expression of arbcom intent. But since I really never worked at WP:BLPSE (I'm a template gnome of sorts), I don't have a view on that page. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some Arbs or other involved parties might care to weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement#Let.27s_mark_this_historical. It seems to be conflicting with the below statements. MBisanz ^talk 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, to state that this is pretty much moot.

The ArbCom RfC No New Policy statement and View by Celarnor statement has given a clear expression from the community that 'general sanctions' of this kind, and policy, pseudo-policy, and new processes by arbcom fiat are not allowed. Policy creation, and ability to apply a 'general sanction' to the entire community, are powers never delegated to the Arbitration Committee. Please note, the Arbitration Committee were given full time to make the case for why they should have this power, but don't appear to have made it to the satisfaction of the community.

While the below Arbitration Committee members may say otherwise, this 'general sanction' is not in effect, and will not be enforced. --Barberio (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to this.

I am quickly approaching formally requesting that the arbitration revoke this 'remedy', and lift the threat of desysopping admins who refuse to accept it. Both of the above RfC statements had strong consensus support and endorsement. You're really not empowered by the community to act in the way you have.

I would suggest that if you are still going to ignore the community consensus on what ArbCom may and may not do, you should consider your positions. --Barberio (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I note that the view of Jimbo as 'God King Emperor' of the project is highly disputed these days. I also note that Jimbo did not create the Arbitration Committee from whole cloth and by fiat. The Arbitration Policy did have to be agreed with by the community as with any other policy.

Frankly, Jimbo's opinion of how the Wikipedia policies should work are worth exactly as much as the next guy's. Wikipedia is not a top-down authoritarian organisation. --Barberio (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Constitutionally speaking the Arbitration Committee derives its power from Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs), who wields absolute power as God-King of the project, understood to be separate from whatever Foundation responsibilities he might have. The community has no powers to "delegate" to the committee; there is the right to vanish and the right to fork. The community is always free to elect arbitrators who take a less expansive view of Arbcom's role but until such time it has authorized this body to act on its behalf.

All this is a way of saying that arguments over this remedy should turn on whether it's a good idea, not whether Arbcom can do it or not. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is not a god-king, he's a very influential editor who has historically been granted certain roles by the community and the foundation. His 'powers' are whatever the community and the foundation collectively give him. If the community and the foundation disagree with Jimbo, the community and the foundation win.

I'm amazed to see anyone even espousing the notion of an absolute power over any group of humans in the 21st century (even if it is just an encyclopedia-making project). That's just not the way humans do things anymore-- ESPECIALLY not on a Wiki.

Mind you, I'm not expressing any Anti-Jimbo sentiments at all. I'm not trying to attack Jimbo himself in the slightest, and the statements I say above are, as best I can tell, entirely consistent with how Jimbo views himself-- not as a god-king, but as a UK-esque constitutional monarch whose role diminishes over time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• You are requesting a clarication regarding the "special enforcement on biographies of living persons" wich concerns the footnoted quotes' case. Biographies of living people are subject to a strict policy. Special enforcements are part of Wikipedia's general sanctions. If we had had a "footnoted quotes" case where no problems with biographies of living persons were noted then this special enforcement remedy wouldn't have existed. Similar remedies were applied to other cases but policies are created following a process --not specific arbitration remedies. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 04:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Logging case sanctions on ArbCom pages is the norm. It makes it easier to locate blocks or bans that are the result of a ruling. Additionally, a page was started to explain the logging requirement. If an actual problems arise from this requirement to log or the page explaining the ruling then we can look to make at change. I'm not seeing a need for any action by the Committee regarding this case at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Flo that no action is needed, and with Mackensen in his comments re. the applicability of transitive devolution and delegation. James F. (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

---

---

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

• User:PHG (initiator)
• User:Elonka (notified [15])
• User:Jehochman (notified [16])
• User:Abd (notified [17])
• User:Eupator (notified [18])
• User:Angusmclellan (notified [19])

I, User:PHG, would like to respectfully ask the Comity to lift the sanctions I have been submitted to since March 2008, on the basis of (1) Good conduct during time served (entering the 6th month now) (2) Revelations of controversial behaviour on the part of my primary accusers (3) Reassertion of my good faith throughout these proceedings.

• I believe I have properly followed the Arbcom’s edit restrictions (no edits in Ancient History and Medieval areas etc...) during the 6 months served (on a total of one year), a fact even recognized recently by Elonka [20].
• I used this time to continue my contributions to Wikipedia in an intensive way, as encouraged by the Comity, creating from scratch major articles on cultural interactions, as well as numerous sub-articles, outside of my edit restrictions: France-Thailand relations, France-Japan relations (19th century), Siamese revolution (1688), Japan-Thailand relations, Siege of Bangkok etc…
• As requested, I refrained from engaging in lengthy disputes on Talk Pages, even when some behaviour seemed outrageous and illegitimate to me (such as removing important referenced material from articles): [21], [22].
• A good consequence of this Arbcom ruling is that I have been able to further improve the quality of my contributions and sourcing. I’ve been working very positively with a mentor User:Angusmclellan for the validation of my foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones.

During my Arbcom proceedings I regularly complained about Elonka’s implacable harassment, systematic mis-characterization of my edits etc… At the time, this was simply a matter between Elonka and me, but since then Elonka has been met by a huge amount of similar complaints from numerous independent users and Administrators, to the point that she was requested to honour her pledge to step down as Administrator (a pledge she will apparently not respect anyway, creating further doubts about her ethical conduct): User talk:Elonka#Recall Proposal, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka. In any case, her behaviour has proven to be extremely controversial, and I believe it has been central in misrepresenting my editorial contributions and influencing the decision of the Arbcom. Finally, although the Arbcom had requested Elonka to refrain from pursuing me after the Arbcom decision was taken, she has continued to stalk/ harass me nonetheless [23].

In respect to Elonka’s apparent supporters, claims of Wikipedia:Tag teaming have also been made: Wikipedia talk:Tag team#Ironic. Elonka is also known to sollicitate support off-Wiki for her on-Wiki battles: ([24], [25]), a fact which I and other users suspect is quite systematic in her case. By doing so, Elonka unfairly manages to obtain the appearance of Community support in her disputes with others.

User:Jehochman, who initiated this Arbcom case against me, also has displayed quite alarming behaviour, recently being described as “if he was not an Administrator he would be called a vandal” and a “harasser” in his current drama with former ally Elonka Wikipedia talk:Administrators open to recall#The admin recall process is dead (WP:AN)

I would like to leave behind any animosity towards Elonka or Jehochman for their actions against me, and I wish to reconcile with them, but I am asking the Arbitration Comity to take into account these revelations about the problematic behaviour of my main accusers, redress this unfair situation I have been put in, and free me from the effects of their abuse.

I solemnly reaffirm that all my edits have always been done in good faith, as already kindly recognized by the Arbcom. I am no professional historian, but all my references have always been taken from proper published sources. I may have been quite enthousiastic for the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance, looking for every bit of scholarly confirmation or every little bit of information on the existence of the alliance, but I never intentionally misrepresented sources, neither has it ever been shown (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table), (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Workshop#Response_to_Elonka_by_PHG). When several editors band together to make this sort of accusations however it gives the overall impression that indeed there must be something awefully wrong with the attacked editor, and this can clearly sway an Arbcom decision.

Overall I am a good-faith editor who is fascinated by the subjects he writes about, and is maybe slightly over-enthusiastic about documenting them. I am extremely proud to have brought to light and documented such little-known subjects as the Franco-Mongol alliance, Indo-Greek Kingdom, History of Buddhism, Boshin War , Imperial Japanese Navy, France-Thailand relations etc... I document extensively all I write, and no, I don't misrepresent sources, or when it is perceived to be so, it is certainly not intentional and only a mistake on my part.

In a nutshell, I believe my accusers have unfairly harassed and misrepresented my actions to obtain this Arbcom ruling, and such suspicion of undue behaviour has been hugely reinforced with Elonka's current similar disputes on a large scale with other users. I have however complied the best I could to the Arbcom resolution showing an example of good conduct. All my edits have always been done in good faith, and I believe this dispute has at least helped me improve in editorial and sourcing quality. In consequence, I request the Comity to rehabilitate me and now lift the edit restrictions against me. Regards PHG (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer has kindly provided a list of the findings of the Arbcom regarding my alledged use of the sources (Report on use of sources). I am thankfull that this at last provides an opportunity to discuss about facts rather then just accusations. However, besides the kind recognition that I never ever made up any reference, and that all my quotes have all proven to be exact, all the other findings are extremely weak and seem to rely on wrong interpretations or translations. I am quite amazed that such a severe Arbcom ruling can be passed with such little or faulty evidence. I respectfully ask the Arbitrators to read this list and my response to it, and reconsider. Best regards PHG (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The conduct of other people is immaterial to User:PHG's sanctions. All the allegations concerned PHG's editing were independently checked and those that were confirmed were incorporated into the arbitration decision. Any rancor exhibited by third parties towards myself or Elonka has no bearing on PHG. The current situation, where PHG has a mentor, seems to be beneficial, and should be continued. I think that if a mentor is in place, PHG could be allowed to edit any article in the encyclopedia, so long as the mentor is checking edits to confirm that past problems are not resuming. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree with PHG's assessment, and I think it's best if the Committee declines this request for appeal. Though PHG has been editing within his restrictions, I have seen nothing from him to indicate that he even understands the problems that caused the sanctions from the previous ArbCom case. Also, we still aren't even done with the cleanup of the articles that he already affected. PHG might benefit from participating at the talkpages of the articles still requiring cleanup, to assist with their repair. That would be the best way that he could prove that he had turned over a new leaf, and was able to work in a collegial manner within that topic area. In the meantime, it is my belief that the sanctions are doing their job of protecting the project (as well as protecting PHG from further blocks or bans), and should be kept in place. --Elonka 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just claiming my place in queue. I affirm PHG in his request for restrictions to be removed on the grounds I stated in the last request for clarification, namely, that no specific allegations against PHG were reported as confirmed by ArbCom; only a general affirmation of the validity of the allegations against him was offered. JJB 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

PHG recently earned the 50DYK medal. He earns my thanks his dedication. Based upon PHG's contributions I was on the verge of supporting this motion, but am troubled by the selection and presentation of his claims regarding individuals who participated in the arbitration case. He mentions that Jehochman reconciled with Elonka about her recall pledge, but not that Jehochman initiated the recall motion itself. Nor does he mention that the recent noticeboard complaint against Jehochman was generally dismissed as meritless. I am grateful to be spared a role in the allegation. Unfortunately PHG's construction of that argument bears resemblance to the chief problem that led to his restriction: a tendency to selectively gather and present data that supports a given thesis, and including dubious evidence in support of that thesis while excluding strong evidence against it. Had PHG weighed my role in the Elonka recall movement, it really would not be possible to allege a unified conspiracy or cabal. For the record, I discovered this motion while reading my watchlist and haven't discussed it with anyone. My completely independent opinion is to let the current remedy stand. With respect, Durova^Charge! 23:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to congratulate PHG for the recent 50DYK medal; I truly believe he is an excellent contributor and we appreciate all his efforts. However, comments as recent as this and this indicate that PHG has not resolved the concerns that brought us here - he has an unfortunate tendency to only give information which supports his position, even if that requires taking information out of context, skewing it to mean something completely different or ignoring obvious facts to the contrary. As shown in the diffs, PHG still asserts that he "refuted" all claims that he misrepresented sources and that there were no problems with his behavior, instead, he again focuses on Elonka and "attackers" as the reason the case went against him. This doesn't mean that anyone assumes bad faith of his contributions, but there is obviously a blind spot here and one severe enough that it needs watching if he's unable to recognize and resolve the issue on his own. Shell ^babelfish 00:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The Committee continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, however, it found misrepresentation of sources and reactions to questioning. The errors in sourcing could be within what would be normal for a knowledgeable editor with opinions and a massive corpus of articles created, and did not represent willful distortion; hence my conclusion was that the essential problem was with civility, and when civility is the problem, it is rarely one-sided. In following the enforcement of the ban, I saw incivility and personal attack and possible harassment directed against PHG; each incident was a provocation which could have ended his Wikipedia career. While the behavior of others should not excuse poor behavior by him, it is also true that normal human beings will react to incivility with incivility, and identifying a "guilty party" often misses what really happened. I would not have advised PHG to file this Arbitration alone, and I would not have advised him to make the behavior of other editors an issue, but I also understand why he did, and his appeal should not be rejected on that basis. I would have encouraged him to try to work out alternative methods of satisfying the concerns of the community, and gather some support for them, before proceeding with an appeal. As an example, he's been required to use sources in English, a requirement that we do not place on other editors. Nevertheless, the requirement is an attempt to answer a real concern: how can we verify that he has accurately represented the sources? I have found it common in certain areas that sources are cited which are difficult to verify, even when they are in English, because the publications may not be readily accessible. We normally accept such sources, assuming good faith on the part of the editor. In a civil environment, solutions to the problem can be found. If there is mistrust and blame, it can be very difficult. PHG could, for example, scan an obscure source and make it available for review; translators could be found to confirm his translations; we could actively consult with experts as well. His content is well worth the effort. I recommend that the topic ban be lifted, provided that PHG continue to work with a mentor or mentors; he should receive advice not only with his use of sources, but also in how to find a productive consensus with the community. Further, whenever the Committee puts an editor under civility restrictions, it is incumbent on the Committee and the community to specially protect the editor from provocation. I saw the ArbComm sanctions against him misrepresented frequently as if the Committee had found him guilty of massive distortion of sources, which was not the case. Errors can be fixed, provided that civility and cooperation is established and maintained. Let's not inhibit this valuable editor; instead, lets help him and others cooperate more effectively. His critics can be very useful, they will restrain his "enthusiasm," by making sure that his sources are checked and that he does not draw unwarranted conclusions from them, and, if we are careful to maintain a constructive environment, the project can only benefit. --Abd (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The original ArbCom was in response to some quite egregious behaviour which seriously undermined the credibility of Wikipedia in some of the areas in which the appellant edited, and they have never actually acknowledged to be wrong - instead trying to blame everyone else involved in the process. I don't think there are any matters for ArbCom to consider here. Orderinchaos 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The short version:

• I do not agree with Fayssal as to exactly what the mentorship remedy says,
• I do not feel that the remedies should be lifted at this time.

I said to Elonka and PHG here, about a month ago, that "I would be happier if PHG would ask advice in all cases, and especially before submitting DYKs" and that the decision to separate the two parts of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG is required to provide a means for the Community to verify his sources. by and/or rather than and was not helpful. Fayssal seems to be reading things in the remedy which I don't see ("you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available" is missing the "or ask your mentor" part). Because of the and/or, that's not the remedy which I think I'm helping to implement, and it's not what PHG thinks I'm doing. Perhaps this could be clarified?

Elonka raised questions about two of PHG's new articles in July: here (regarding Shanhai Yudi Quantu) and here (regarding Cheonhado). Also regarding Cheonhado, see Elonka's opposition to the original DYK nom here. To me, the problem with the hook suggests that PHG still has to work on following WP:V closely. I appreciate the difficulty of writing hooks dealing with obscure topics which meet the relevant content policies and are interesting as well, but DYK hooks do not need to be sensational. My experience is that they don't even need to be especially interesting.

As regards the restriction on editing ancient and medieval articles in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#PHG restricted, I have only looked at one of the articles PHG mentions, Indo-Greek Kingdom. I do not see that PHG has yet entirely resolved the problems of sourcing which were seen there. For example, Mathsci commented (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Statement by Mathsci) regarding Siamese revolution (1688). This relies heavily on published editions of primary source materials and it is in no way clear whether it is the primary source which is being relied upon or the accompanying editorial apparatus. For example, in the Siamese Revolution piece, we read: "It is generally considered that Desfarges could have eliminated the conspiracy at this point if he had pursued his mission towards Lopburi ...". This is referenced to Smithies' Three military accounts of the 1688 "Revolution" in Siam, but it is not apparent whether this comes from one of the military accounts or from Smithies' commentary on the accounts. [And even if it came from Smithies himself, why does the word "generally" appear?] This sort of referencing is only useful to someone who has the cited source in front of them, and that is hardly likely to the case here as Worldcat shows. I am sure PHG could do better, and did do rather better at Siege of Bangkok. Given the problem seen here, I do not think that lifting this remedy would be in the best interest of PHG or the project as whole at this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Fayssal and Brad for clearing things up for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PHG's edits frequently distorted and misrepresented sources, as documented and discussed extensively at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. I am not confident that his tendency to bend sources to fit with pre-conceived views has ended, so I'd recommend keeping this remedy as it stands. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• While waiting for the input of the mentor... This remedy was very explicit PHG. It sets a limit which is a year and not six months though this is less important here since ArbCom may respond positively to such a request depending on the circumstances. But your request above got a few flaws. a) you are required to use sources that are in English and widely available -- you say your mentor assists you for the "validation of your foreign language sources or obscure English-language ones." b) one of your statements above includes diffs to admins' issues elsewhere; which are irrelevant to the case at hand. Remember that we are dealing with articles' sourcing. c) spending no more than 5 weeks (since July 17th) with a mentor is not enough. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Angus McLellan, the "or ask your mentor" is not missing. The point is that PHG says that he consults you in validating both foreign language sources (a good thing) and obscure ones(!) -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Want to hear from the mentor before I comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm reading the statements as they come in. I'm still waiting for a few more, from user's that were notified, before I comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Based on the above statements, it is best for the remedy to be unchanged for now. The meaning of the remedy was clarified in the past. PGH can either use English sources that are easily available for most editors to review or PHG can consult with his mentor about using sources that are not easily for most editors to view. If the mentor and PHG agree that the reference is appropriate, then it can be used in a particular instance. PHG is not limited to choosing one approach or the other globally, but can decide in each instance which is the best approach. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'd personally like to see a longer track record of working with a mentor before I will support modifying this remedy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• I, too, would not be comfortable with waiving or altering the remedies at this point. James F. (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Too early to modify. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• I was the scrivener of the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. As I stated in that decision, we continued to assume the good faith of User:PHG, and I continue to do so today. However, the extent to which PHG had overstated or mis-cited the contents of sources used in articles raised serious issues concerning whether his article contributions were adding verifiable and reliable content to Wikipedia, particularly in articles on relatively abstruse historical topics that were unlikely to attract much scholarly attention from other editors. Contrary to the suggestion in the current request, the Arbitration Committee did not simply accept the word of petitioning editors such as Elonka and Jehochman that a problem existed, but arbitrators actually read through some of the cited sources to compare them with the uses that PHG was making of them, and verified that the problems were real. I trust that PHG can understand, and would appreciate if he would acknowledge, that a problem existed. To assure myself that the problem has been alleviated, would require a mentor or another user with relevant expertise to spot-check some of PHG's more recent articles on comparable subjects to confirm that sources are now being used appropriately and cited accurately for propositions that the cited works, taken as a whole, fairly support. To date, this showing has not been made and therefore I regretfully join in the decision not to modify the sanction at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• I see no reason why the remedies in the case should not continue to take their course. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note the Report on use of sources in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

---

---

---

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

• NonvocalScream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Steve Crossin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Deskana stated that the committee is considering Steve's position, but not the administrators, the community may deal with those. The community has thus far found no sanctions are needed on any of the three. FT2 stated that the committee may may still sanction Steve for his problematic edits. If the committee wishes to sanction when the community has chosen not to, may we:

• Know the nature of the problomatic edits?

• Have a public case filed on the arb pages?

Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Flonight: Thank you for the fast response; May the committee inform the community of the evidence, perhaps the community can participate, given the feeling on the AN discussion thread, I believe this would be most helpful. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Flonight: For me to rephrase. May we participate in the decision making process on this? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I question the provision of your decision that prohibits PeterSymonds and Chet B Long from regaining the tools via normal RFA. The community is in a good position to weigh the seriousness of this situation. On general principle it's better for the Committee to entrust such sysopping to the community's wisdom unless compelling reason exists that the community could not make an informed decision. Durova^Charge! 07:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Deskana: yes, please. Considering the confusion that arose over Shoemaker's Holiday, in light of the MONGO and Alkivar precedents, it would certainly be good to amend the decision and make it clear. Less drama for everybody. :) Durova^Charge! 04:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon: Yes, please see my exchange with Deskana. Durova^Charge! 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad, yes we are requesting that the two administrators who resigned their tools be allowed to run RFA. Under the current decision they are not permitted to do so, and the arbitrator who wrote the decision that way atates that this part of the wording was unintentional and he'd be glad to change it. Please do. Durova^Charge! 05:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom does not have the authority to place restrictions on Steve at this time. They are attempting to circumvent the community's right to handle this situation. It was this kind of behavior that lead us to question ArbCom's authority at the recent RfC. -- Ned Scott 08:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Deskana: ArbCom is here for when we've tried everything we can to handle it ourselves, but can't. I understand going to arbcom right away when it involves admin bits, but Steve is a normal user. Please, let us deal with this. While some people are upset about what has happened, there is no urgency here that would justify cutting the community out of this. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to FloNight: You say "In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)"

This is incorrect. Steve was pressured into accepting this because he believed it was his only option, and feared the committee banning him indefinitely. ArbCom shouldn't even be considering a case at this point. This is something for the community to decide. Arbcom is bulling/blackmailing Steve and his wife into this "agreement", and you should be ashamed of yourself for it. -- Ned Scott 00:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Synergy: When I'm hearing this from Steve's mouth, then no, I'm not misinformed. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to" Nonsense is bolded. -- Ned Scott 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Steve's request, I'm dropping this issue.

I would like to apologies to the committee for some of my comments here. While I still believe this is a situation that the community should handle, Steve's fear of being banned is not the fault of the committee. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that Steve has apparently taken a wikibreak, which renders questions over his ability to attain the tools moot for the time being. That's not to say that the question shouldn't be considered, but that the final decision need not be made hastily now that the issue has been brought publicly. Ral315 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ned, you appear to be misinformed. The discussion was moving towards a positive sanction in which Steve had agreed to. It was interrupted by an additional notice from arbitration. While I'd like to see Steve in a comfortable spot to edit, this might not be possible. This has been over for some time now, and I'd like to suggest that you let this go.

I'd like to also echo Durova. I too, am eager to see a statement with respect to Peter and Chet. Synergy 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ned, much of this began with hearing things come out of Steve's mouth. My comments are directed toward your assessment of the AN thread, not off wiki conversations. Regards. Synergy 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ned: Thank you for re factoring, I do appreciate the tone down. But its not nonsense. Here is the diff where he agreed to the proposal/sanction made by Seddon. Please ask yourself this: Is any of this helping Steve? If the answer is no, then please take my aforementioned suggestion. Regards. Synergy 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To jpgordon: Yes. We are still awaiting further clarification on the reapplication of the two former admins. Synergy 17:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Durova. Please consider her proposal. We, the community, are not buffoons, and we can make these decisions. —Giggy 08:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The circumstances of Peter and Chet's re-confirmation RFA I have no feelings on. To address Ned Scott's point, I propose a test. Someone hardblock's Steve's account for 6 months. Then we get to test how many sysops feel it is worth putting their bit on the line to unblock him and also how long it takes arbcom to find a steward to desysop someone for violating their finding. In any case, Steve let AGK put the wikibreak enforcer in his monobook and Steve could very easily overcome it or post to his user talk:Steve Public page, so these offsite issues of being pressured are rather pointless, heck even if they were on-site, I'm still wondering how many people find Steve to be trustworthy enough to believe anything he says. MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record I think the two former administrators have paid the penalty for their chronic lapse of judgement and that to say they resigned under a cloud should be sufficient, such that the community can decide if they decide to reapply at some future point. The Committee are obviously privy to information we aren't, but I was led to believe from the evidence presented that Peter's was initially logged into without his permission or knowledge, although the situation appears to have changed after that time. Orderinchaos 22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this matter not closed, further to Steve's retirement, and the retirement and voluntary desysopping of Peter and Chet? If so, both on procedural grounds, and from a general motivation to put this matter firmly behind us, would it not be best practice to archive this without takin action? Anthøny ✉ 00:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Recuse, due to prior involvement with Steve Crossin in an advisory capacity. Anthøny ✉ 00:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Of course the Committee will give the Community reasons if we give sanctions. The Committee's job is to throughly collect all importance evidence, examine it all, and then have each arbitrator vote. We make a preliminary notice because it was important for the Community to be aware of the events. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional comment. The Committee went public with the announcement before we were finished with our discussion because of ongoing issues forced a comment. We knew that some people in the community knew and some didn't know about the account sharing, the desysops, and the Committee's investigation. At that point we felt a prompt statement was needed to the whole Community. The full Committee has not finished the discussion and voted. We will keep the Community updated as we make decisions. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
    • The Arbitration Committee decides when to accept cases and when to reject them. The Committee was approached by a non arbitrator checkuser with results that showed serious evidence of user account abuse, including administrator account sharing. The administrators resigned their tools. The administrators account sharing was coupled with other incidents of problematic behavior by one of the users before and after the check that indicated problems with trust could continue. This needed prompt action as well since real life issues were intermixed with the on site problems. There was public and private comments made by the Community, and these were taken into consideration, including requests to delay a finding or allow the Community to determine the sanctions. In the end, the Committee and Steve both agreed that prompt action would be better than a long drawn out public case. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• We seem to have forged a decision that we are happy with, but must wait for a few addition Arbitrators to confirm. --Deskana (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

  Durova: That was not actually intentional. I was the one that drafted the message that was placed on the administrators noticeboard, and I didn't exclude their ability to reapply through RFA intentionally... I just happened not to think to include it. If you wish, I could ask if the Committee would be happy with amending the statement to include their ability to reapply through RFA. I've certainly not got a problem with them doing so, but I can't speak for the other Arbitrators. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  Ned Scott: Why not? That was exactly why we were created. I indicated that in my statement that the community could discuss its own sanctions if it wished to, but that the Arbitration Committee was also discussing its own. At the time, it seemed unlikely that we would agree on any additional sanctions. Things have changed since then. --Deskana (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is there anything else that needs doing here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• I was travelling last weekend and missed almost all of the discussion when these events were unfolding. The steps taken appear to be generally reasonable although I have not studied up on the fine points. I am not sure whether any further action is being requested at this point. Is it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think we need to do anything further; it's now clear how the meaning of the wording, though perhaps ambiguous, was intended. James F. (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If the case is closed and deleted, should it not be archived? (It wasn't, as far as I could see.) Also note that User:Coffee's user page and some of its subpages still include the admin cat (he's removed the cat from some of his pages tonight, but appears to have missed a few). Jayen466 01:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC) This would get archived here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Closed_motions. See instructions on top. This is not the place to worry about Coffee's page cats. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

---

---

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

• Rlevse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Coffee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (previously Chet B Long)
• PeterSymonds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Both parties notified: PeterSymonds and Coffee

As the prior clarification on Steve Crossin, PeterSymonds, and Coffee did not specifically address the RFA option of Coffee and PeterSymonds as it was focused on other issues, can we get an explicit reading on whether these two users can or can not regain their admin bit by RFA or if their only option is through arbcom? Whenever there's a desyssop, I suggest the committee explicitly state if only arbcom is an option or if both arbcom and RFA are options. It'd greatly reduce confusion.

As thoughts specifically on how the Committee could respond to this matter, it may be worthwhile developing an "official announcement" in private (on list? on arbcomwiki?) to satisfy the queries raised by Rlevse, seizing the agreement of the arbitrators en banc, and posting that reply on this thread.

In all honesty, the usual system of arbitrators individually commenting; proposing motions, adjustments, amendments, or clarifications; and working towards satisfying the issues underlying; is not appropriate (no "proper response" is really given, from the committee as a single body at least), nor an efficient use of anybody's time.

Anthøny ✉ 02:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For WJB: how would you suggest we approach getting these requests for clarification done quickly and efficiently? Anthøny ✉ 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Given Deskana's statement [26] that the language which excludes these two former administrators from regaining that access through the normal means was accidental, I would appreciate clarification as to whether they are free to run at RfA. The promotion of administrators should remain the preserve of the RfA process unless there is relevant information about a candidate known to the Arbitration Committee which, for good reason, cannot be openly revealed. It seems that, in this case, full disclosure of the circumstances in which these two users allowed a third party access to their admin account would be needed to reestablish community confidence. Given this, there is no obvious reason why they may only regain adminship through appeal... WJBscribe (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: I disagree entirely with AGK's comment above: far too much ArbCom business occurs behind closed doors. If this simple question cannot be resolved in the open, I despair. WJBscribe (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re phrasing: May I suggest: "... were compromised, may each opt to regain their access either through the usual RFA process, or by application to ArbCom." This avoids the possibly confusing use of "their" and "access" would seem to me to be a better word to use than "status". WJBscribe (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Echoing WJBscribe's statement, with the additional comment that it surprises me greatly that the previous request for clarification closed without resolving this important point. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To jpgordon: either option A or C would be reasonable. My only objection is to preventing the community from exercising its customary discretion, without special cause. Durova^Charge! 05:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To Sam Blacketer and Newyorkbrad, please review the request for clarification on the Matthew Hoffman case, which Rlvese closed last month calling it a clear decision.[27] The principal thing it clarified is that a desysopped Wikipedian may not run for RFA unless ArbCom specifically allows it. In the words of TheBainer, which other responding Committee members endorsed:

I can say that desysopping remedies are always explicit about the methods by which the person concerned can reapply to be a sysop, identifying that it may be by the "usual means", by application to the Committee, or by some other means. In this case the method specified was "by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards", and as such a request for adminship is not permitted within that decision.

When I presented evidence that TheBainer’s explanation conflicted with the Seabhcan precedent where the decision had been silent about RFA, and yet MONGO had subsequently been allowed to request readminship through RFA, I requested a link to any announcement of when the practice had changed. Bainer replied with the following:

Re Durova, I can't speak to what the then members of the Committee were thinking nineteen months ago in the Seabhcan case. All I was saying is that in every single case since then involving a desysopping, the Committee has expressly identified the methods by which the relevant user could re-apply for sysophood. I don't think there was any "announcement", it's just been included explicitly in all the remedies passed since.

Now, barely five weeks later, multiple Committee members fail to see the inconsistency. This is my sixth post to the second of two threads in making a request that you yourselves, as a body, recently declared to be mandatory. After this many attempts I’m at a loss to restate this simple matter politely, so here it is in blunt terms:

The community cannot read your minds. If you depart from precedent and establish a new formula for decision terminology, the onus is upon you to make a clear and public announcement to that effect in advance of its implementation. Once such a decision emerges it remains in force until ArbCom as a body (not a couple of individual arbitrators) changes it. You have conventions for doing so. Use them.

These are matters of basic organizational competence. They should require no reminder or explanation. I have sometimes counseled editors who were named parties at arbitration to put their best foot forward: if they did not conduct themselves in a reasonable manner during the proceeding itself, then the only reasonable conclusion is that they would not or could not do so under any circumstances. Have you forgotten that the community is scrutinizing the arbitration committee at a request for comment? Are you aware that the Italian Wikipedia recently shut down their arbitration committee?

Moreover, this must have the effect of yet another slap in the face to Shoemaker’s Holiday, whose health you consistently pay lip service to and then abuse. Put yourselves in his shoes for a moment—singled out and humiliated by an unannounced departure from precedent that you abandon at the very next opportunity--the best exercise of good faith he could probably attempt is a quote from Napoleon:

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.

Shame on you. Durova^Charge! 21:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

To Sam Blacketer: nothing about confidentiality in the Matthew Hoffman case compelled the Committee to make an unannounced departure from precedent in the way it wrote and intended its decision there. Nor did any concern of that nature compel the Committee to first neglect to include a necessary clause from the very next similar decision it handed down after the Matthew Hoffman clarification, or to fumble repeated requests to regularize the Coffee/PeterSymonds decision. Genuine concern for Shoemaker's health should have prompted special diligence to avoid compounding the unnecessary stresses the Committee has already created. It is base to invoke such a concern to conceal your own shortcomings. At least the emperor who had no clothes had the good taste not to steal the lame man's fig leaf.

Shoemaker's Holiday has contributed 28 29 another promotion tonight featured content items to the encyclopedia since his desysopping. In the same span of time, have all 15 of you together done as much? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Durova^Charge! 05:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up to Sam: is there a typo in your statement? I don't know who you intend to address, but those points are certainly unrelated to my objections here. Durova^Charge! 08:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sam: I am at a loss to see how you construe such inferences from my posts. It was TheBainer who cited precedent as the reason Shoemaker's Holiday could not run for RFA, then when presented with a contradictory precedent he argued it was obsolete and practice had changed, and he also insisted that formal request for clarification was mandatory. That was the opinion the Committee endorsed. Now the Commitee may not be bound by precedent but you are bound by an expectation to be comprehensible; it simply doesn't wash to issue a series of vague and contradictory decisions worded indistinguishably whose real intention is understood by nobody but yourselves. We hope that you explain in advance, and when you fail to we must ask you afterward.

In particular it is important to avoid these irregularities when a man's health is concerned. The arbitrators I consulted with privately (I won't name them) expressed a desire to relieve Shoemaker of stress as a reason for offering to resysop him via private appeal. Whether or not you ever do so is not pertinent to this thread, but what is germane is that your actions are having precisely the opposite effect--needlessly and thoughtlessly so--if that were accident it would be bad enough, but when the Committee placed him under its parole it assumed an implicit obligation to be a model of steady and responsible behavior. Is this the example you expect him to follow: forgetting decisions from one month to the next and covering the gaps with excuses? Failing to heed five successive patient and necessary requests, then lashing out with non sequiturs when someone names the inconsistencies? Shoemaker's Holiday is not perfect, but he is unlikely to improve under such guidance as that.

To paraphrase WJBscribe I was near despair when I named Shoemaker's featured content production; there are far more Zoes in the world than Shoemakers. Want a featured credit, Sam? Tonight I downloaded two eighteenth century manuscript drawings of the Mayan ruins at Palenque. They're in good condition and suitable as beginner restoration projects; I'll collaborate if you're willing to learn. Perhaps if you try this you'll see what this site came so close to losing. I'm Wikipedia's second best at this medium after Shoemaker, and I'm not half what he is. Durova^Charge! 11:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the sudden nature of this incident and the arbcom involvement pre-AN post, I think some sort of communication with arbcom by the parties prior to any sort of rights change would be the best course of action. John Reaves 09:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just told about this, but, well, I believe that everything the committee knows about me is to do with my health problems. If there's anything else, the committee has not said so when I asked them if there was. As they feel it's relevant, they have my permission to reveal any and all information they have on me, provided they present it with reasonable tact. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To the Arbcom

With all respect, please stop talking about how you made the decision in order to protect my health. In fact, your handling of the process sent me into a six-month decline. Though I accept your intent was probably good, I'm afraid that it is simply galling to have you talking about how you did it to protect me now, given that, at the time, simple requests such as a break because I was having a full-scale nervous breakdown - which I told you - were denied, no time was given off for exams, and instead I was criticised for not providing more evidence while my health got worse and worse. During the recent appeal, it really did feel like Morven was using my illness to attack me. I did not want to be dragged into this discussion. Now that I have, I would ask that you please not speak on my behalf. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As this seems to be an issue, I will briefly list my health problems. The overarching one is that for the past 4 years, I have had symptoms similar to flu that last between two weeks and three months intermittently. It has been diagnosed as several related things, all of which come under the category of post-viral fatigue syndromes.

However, since it has lasted so long, several mental health issues have arisen as well, primarily depression and certain problems with nerves, due to finding it somewhat difficult to cope as, since the problems are intermittent and not outright crippling, I receive no help with coping with the effects whatsoever. This has led to a few nervous breakdowns.

The arbcom case was launched when I was already having money troubles over the effects of these, and while I was in one of my bad patches, where it can feel like I'm thinking through wool.

I do not want to criticise the committee too much - it is my hope they have never and will never suffer from long-term illness. However, as a counterpoint to this, the committee also seems to be unable to deal with such issues in Wikipedians, and their behaviour made things substantially worse. Particularly, continuing the case two months past the point where I revealed this to them and offered to resign adminship immediately can only be described as gross mishandling.

The committee's handling of this was, perhaps understandably, poor, and certain aspects of the case, which I'm sure we are all aware of by now, made things far worse. It is for others to discuss such points. What I would ask now is, that the committee, who have shown themselves so unable to deal with my illness with any sensitivity, recuse themselves from any further decisions on my half motivated by my illness, leaving that between me and my doctors. The committee's efforts to "protect" me, in all honesty, have only served to perpetuate their poor handling of the original case. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Recuse, from clerking duties on this thread. Anthøny ✉ 02:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The motion has passed; could some clerk do whatever clerks do with motions that have passed please? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- I was kinda surprised it was closed, given the positive response when I asked if there was more that needed to be handled. I think we can do this just with a quick up and down vote. My thought is that the two left under a cloud, but a very visible cloud, and if the community says it's OK to come back as admins, it's OK with me; I can't imagine the community would hold back from grilling both of them completely regarding the situation that led to the accounts being abused; I haven't heard anything that would require any privacy, and I trust the RFA process is at least robust enough to reflect the concern of the community should they try. Other committee members might be more annoyed by the circumstances than I am, or perhaps more informed. I guess the choices should be (a) Coffee and PeterSymonds may regain their administrative status through the normal RFA channel; (b) they may regain their administrative status by application to ArbCom; or (c) they may regain their administrative status by RFA after application to ArbCom. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Jpgordon. The circumstances in which these two users came to lose administrative powers are known and in my opinion the community has all the information it needs to decide if and when they should return to be admins. It is up to Coffee and PeterSymonds to decide whether to go through an RFA or to ask Arbcom to restore admin status. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  A response to Durova, whose tone I regret is not constructive. I can't speak for what went on before my term began, but my take on the more recent decisions is this. Sometimes, concerns about the conduct of administrators come to the committee through being raised in public, and the entirety of the case is known to the wider community. In other cases, for various reasons, serious matters are raised in private which one or other party needs to be kept confidential, and in those circumstances the committee has no choice but to decide in private. In the case of these Coffee and PeterSymonds, nothing important is confidential and so the community is fully able to decide. Where one aspect of the case is rightly kept confidential, the community does not have a full picture and it would be unfair all round to have a decision about administrator status made by assumptions about factors which are not known. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  To further reply, Arbitration on Wikipedia is not bound by precedent. When Shoemaker's Holiday's performance as an administrator was found to be below acceptable standards, but he gave an explanation to the committee of what lay behind it, the committee accepted his explanation. The decision was that his administrator status should be given up until the committee were satisfied that the underlying issue was no longer a problem (I was recused on his case, having only just joined). This was, in all the circumstances, thought fairer to all than having every member of the community make a judgment on what Shoemaker's Holiday had done and whether it was likely to happen again. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  Final reply to Durova. First, there is no such thing as precedent in the manner you suggest. Second, administrator status is not a reward for producing featured content. Third, it is the time taken up by committee work which prevents arbitrators from writing articles. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• As previously mentioned, I was travelling last week when this matter unfolded, but having now reviewed it, I concur that these two editors are eligible to regain adminship either through a new RfA, or through a request that this committee restore adminship after a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • With respect to the matter concerning Shoemaker's Holiday, I disagreed with the Committee's original disposition of that matter and agree that the current situation concerning him requires further discussion. I do not believe, however, that it is best addressed in the context of the present motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• My opinion is for (c) - that is, they're free to apply to RfA, but they can apply to us as well, if they would prefer. James F. (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Usually these days, we state what's intended. If we don't it is because we either don't see it as likely, or as likely any time soon, or we haven't ourselves actually decided (yet).
  In this case, per Sam Blacketer/jpgordon, the community has all that's needed and should be able to assess the users at RFA without further ado. However. there is always some risk that they might not get a fair chance at RFA, so if either wanted to ask us to give a view or consider it, before deciding about seeking RFA, I'd consider that a reasonable approach. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• The typical approach is that users who resign adminship in controversial circumstances must reapply for it through the usual means, and there is no cause for that not to apply here. To clarify the situation, and also to allow application to the Committee should they so choose, I support the motion. Re Durova, this is a case of resignation, not of desysopping, but to reiterate the point anyway: remedies mean what they say and no more. Remedies that are permissive permit only that which is expressly permitted, and remedies that are prohibitive prohibit only that which is expressly prohibited, and not vice versa. In any event, the standard wording on desysopping remedies has already been changed to avoid this potential source of confusion. --bainer (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

---

There appears to be no other formal mechanism for initiating this type of request, so submitting under the general descriptor of other requests.

Per the following:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Harassment_and_threats
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Grave_real-world_harassment
• The Matthew Hoffman clarification
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Harassment_and_threats

Wikipedia's arbitration committee has dealt with a number of situations involving serious harassment, threats, and health issues. These concerns fall far outside the normal scope of encyclopedic disputes; these issues have real world ramifications. The qualifications for which arbitrators are chosen--familiarity with site policies, experience in article dispute resolutions, etc.--have virtually nothing to do with the training and experience requisite for handling problems of this nature. Therefore I offer a solution.

Proposed:

By January 1, 2009 the Committee will either retain the consulting services of credentialed professionals in these areas, or else its members will obtain appropriate fundamental training in these areas from qualified professionals. If the consulting option is selected, normal client-professional confidentiality would apply to the relationship. If the training option is selected, training would be mandatory for all new and returning arbitrators and must be completed by February 15, 2009 or the arbitrator will be placed on the inactive list involuntarily and excluded from internal arbitration communications (mailing list, private wiki, etc.) until training is completed.

The Committee will submit interim reports to the Community via public announcement on the Administrators' Noticeboard on November 1 and December 1. No later than January 1, 2009 the Committee will announce its final action, complete with the names and professional qualifications of the consultants or trainers, and name the formal instruction (if any) that Committee members take. If a Committee member is placed on the inactive list due to failure to complete training, a training needed notation will be added next to that arbitrator's name. The community may request an independent audit for compliance in obtaining and retaining training/consultation, according to reasonable means per the Committee's specification.

Durova^Charge! 04:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy proposals should be made on the talk page or village pump, where there can be proper threaded discussion. You don't get to bypass that and draw attention to your by posing it here. Abcom are not legislators of new policies. I already moved this to the talk page, but Durova reverted me. I invite someone else to move it now.--Troikoalogo (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Replying to the substantive points. (Although I think this debate should be moved elsewhere). Arbcom is not your mother. Durova is correct that it is not qualified to solve issues of criminal harassment, intimidation, mental health issues etc.. But nor should it be, and even if it had "professional advisers" it would still be inappropriate. Arbcom are here to protect the project from user activity which is unhelpful to the aims of the encyclopaedia, and its members are well qualified to do that; it really should not be in the business of doing more than that. If people need professional assistance, or law-enforcement, or psychological help, then point them elsewhere. If arbcom were to "retain consulting services", I'd ask 1) to what end? 2) who would pay (is Durova offering)? 3) and would arbcom wish to be responsible for applying such subjective advice? No, stick to asking "what serves the encyclopaedia?" and "in view of this person's ACTIONS (not their state of mind) is it helpful to this project for them to be allowed to use this website?" Ultimately, and with due respect, the committee are simply glorified (and well-qualified) website moderators, do not pretend that they are, or should be, anything more.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'll chime in here to say that I think this proposal is the whole philosophy underlying BADSITES brought to its logical conclusion. If we were going to let emotional impact on community members dictate the contents of the encyclopedia, it follows logically the project should be compelled to hire mental health experts if not full-time psychiatric consultants in order to run the project in a way that minimized emotional harm to our community members.

To some, this proposal is, it seems, a serious one, put forward in good faith. To me, it's sort of a reductio ad absurdum. A few years ago, some members of Wikipedia started to assume that "Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, it's a community". Practically all of Wikipedia have rejected that assumption by now, but a few still cling to it. Here we see that those people have now reached a conclusion which follows, in perfect logical fashion, from that initial assumption-- but the conclusion that has been reached is, nevertheless, patently absurd. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it nailed.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was my job to find a "BADSITES mentality" in everything? But anyway, this does seem to be a rather extreme case of attempted "mission creep" for ArbCom, and the imposition of silly mandates which remind me of what I've seen happen in other organizations, where "Risk Management" committees have attempted to saddle the members and volunteers of an organization with mandates, restrictions, and mandatory certifications to cover the management's butts for some real or imagined liability issue. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I personally would like to see the policy on responding to suicide threats attended to by a professional who is trained in this area. But I don't think this is an arbitration matter. Thatcher 13:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The arbcom should just explain the limits of their scope if people really aren't sure about this:) For instance say at the top of the Arbitration request page that if people think they are the victim of a crime they should consult the police, and if people have health problems (which I've never heard of arbcom actually directly dealing with anyway) they should consult a doctor or psychiatrist. This is just common sense, the arbcom can't be experts at everything, and it would be wrong of them to try and replace legal or health professionals. As for WP:SUICIDE, I expect there are editors on wikipedia trained in such things, but we could always link to a page suggesting people call the Samaritans or whatever the equivalent is in their country, or consult their doctor. (I'm not being harsh here, we're just not experts and shouldn't pretend to be and meddle as if we were. Sticky Parkin 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I do think wikipedia is a sort-of community but even family members are not as good at a job as professionals. We can offer friendship but not claim to be experts at things we aren't, to do otherwise is irresponsible. Sticky Parkin 13:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sticky, in an arbitration case back in December, when I has having severe health problems, the Arbcom selected me to be iused as a test case for a change in policy, and, by what I think everyone agrees was very poor handling, severely aggravated the health problems, to the point where I had to drop out of University for a semester. These issues are going to come up whether the Arbcom thinks they need to deal with them or not, and I for one would rather the arbcom had at least some basic training so as to not make situations worse. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry to sound harsh, but mental states and subjective dispositions should never be arbcom's concern. We should deal with behaviour and not mindsets. It is the same basic argument against treating minors as special cases. Judge behaviour only and its impact on the community - not subjectivity, mental stress, evil intent or anything else. If people are of a disposition where they can't cope with that, then sympathetically, and humanely we suggest to them that they have the right to vanish. Help, and allowances, are available in many quarters, but unfortunately not here. Wikipedia is not qualified to help, nor is it within the aims and objectives of this project. Treat all the same.--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You're free to edit, regardless of your personal status, if you can abide by policy and edit within community norms. If Wikipedia is detrimental to your health, your career, or your personal safety then you've moved past the point where this project can help you. Speaking as someone who knows more about mental health than he ever cared to, no amount of consultation by the committee with a professional could be a replacement for personal consultation, and would have the potential to cause a real tragedy. I don't want the committee playing cop, psychiatrist, or physician, and I don't think the community does either. Either you can ride the train or you can't. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Point of order: This so-called "request" is for policy change and as such is not something that the Arbitration Committee can or should act upon. This is an inappropriate forum for this discussion. It should be moved elsewhere. Paul August ☎ 15:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

• NonvocalScream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jayvdb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• privatemusings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can you amend this remedy so that this action can be permissible. At this time, the mentors can not do what they are doing, because PM was not editing a biography, he was editing AN, and a subject totally outside biographies?

They cite a remedy for which they can not apply here. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• John: Nothing controversial here... just that in order to apply what you applied, the case //must// be amended. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• John: You have cited a remedy that was not applicable, how do you expect Arbcom to enforce it this way? It needs clarified or amended, no matter if all four of you agreed, AC needs to agree as well. This is not the precedent we set, mentors do not = arbcom. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I withdraw this request for amendment with the understanding that the mentorship extension at dissonance with the remedy, mutually agreed on between the four, and that the extension is broader in scope than what the Committee mandated and therefore the original enforceable mentorship ends at the unextended (pre extension expiration is still valid) time. NonvocalScream (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• PM: Kindof sortof? But can you answer more fully, did the mentor group have informed consent, or not? NonvocalScream (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Based on this answer I am under the impression that the mentorship extension occurred outside the mandate. My motion remains withdrawn with my earlier opinion on the dissonance. Whether or not the Arbitration Committee modifies the remedy to fit this extension, are allows the extension to expire naturally will be completely up to the other party, mentors and arbitrators. I will ask that any further agreements of this nature take place on the wiki before such announcements of extensions take place. This type of action should be on the wiki. Absent any modification, I will clear the extension from the arbitration case page Log of blocks and bans in a few days time. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• JV: No threats, just that you really can't do things in accordance with a remedy, if it is not really in accordance with a remedy. Surely my correcting the AC page will not disrupt your intentions. A quick scan of AN reveals that I was not the only one confused at this odd extension. As for structural damage - do you seriously think that this has damaged a mentoring relationship? You are mentors, not arbiters. So mentor. You did this extension on odd grounds, not me. On wiki actions are open to review. NonvocalScream (talk) 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• JV: Very well. Then I will take my hands off. I trust you all - I just want to see this handled well - PM has great potential. NonvocalScream (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Flonight: Agree and suggest - "For the purposes of editing success, Privatemusings (talk · contribs) is placed under the mentorship of User:Lar, User:Jayvdb, and User:Durova. The mentorship will expire after ninety days from acceptance of this motion. Mentorship arrangements may be extended at the descretion of the mentors." This is my suggestion. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am just recently online, and have only just now seen an email from Lar informing me that there has been a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Mentoring notices for clarification by the mentors and/or privatemusings.

NonvocalScream, that is based on your opinion of how the arbcom remedy was amended last time, and without an appreciation of how it is being applied. If you are right, and the mentoring arrangements have gone beyond the arbcom definition, and someone like you requires that we explicitly have arbcom approval for every detail of the mentoring, then we would have come to arbcom to seek their advice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. In order to re-assess properly whether the mentorship has been operating within the scope of the arbcom remedy, I have wanted to review the recent rfar clarification, and of course needed to review the related email discussions from the last month.

I think I speak for all the mentors that we have understood the arbcom remedy prefix "soley for the matter of editing biographies of living persons" as an indication that that is the outstanding set of problems that arbcom still sees the need to remedy, and also as a limitation on the remit of the mentorship.

So, how does this Moulton issue fit within the scope given to the mentorship? As Durova mentions, at the beginning of the mentoring arrangement, Lar proposed an overall strategy consisting of three stages, one for each month. One of the mentoring arrangements was that for the first month privatemusings was to alert the mentors in advance of any posts that are broadly interpreted as "what ArbCom was worried about", and waits for the mentors give an appraisal of the intended post. This is in context of three or four arbs initially commenting harshly on the "general lack of clue" shown by edits like this one made a few days prior to requesting the prior restrictions being lifted. We felt it was necessary for Privatemusings to keep his head down for the first month in order to apply himself to the task at hand.

At the three months, we as mentors need to be able to say that he has addressed the BLP problem, and we cant do that if he is preferring to spend his wiki-time wading into every drama he can find, or worse yet, initiating them like he did with this Moulton unblock request. Privatemusings hasnt kept his end of the bargain, resulting in only 30 rather simple content edits over the last month. As a result, the mentors have decided that a much more focused approach is needed to ensure he undertakes actual editing during this three month period. We need evidence of good editing rather than the lack of bad evidence. He needs to get a better appreciation for the need for good editing practises, in order to obtain a release from the shadow over his head. If he isnt going to focus on serious editing in the three months, I dont feel right letting the mentorship continue for two more months as a charade.

We have decided on the basics of the new more focused approach for the coming month, however we are waiting on privatemusings to give us some thoughts on the specifics and his preferences. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Also part of the mentoring arrangement was that the clock being reset if he didnt stick to the three stage plan. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@WAS 4.250, I agree wholeheartedly with the message Create. We are hoping that privatemusings does more of that in the coming months. The mentorship arrangement doesnt not require that he seek our permission to do that he wants; otoh, it does attempt to curtail his tendency to treat this as a free speech project. If he wants representation, for himself or for others, that comes at a price: free content. As another example, refer to User:Privatemusings/A walk on a path in a garden#Talk:Giovanni di Stefano, where Privatemusings waxed lyrical whilst proposing to edit an article that the arbitrator Newyorkbrad explicitly told Privatemusings to steer clear of in the last clarification discussion. I have privately told him that his involvement in the Wikiversity project is a good thing, but warned him to ensure that his edits there over the duration of this mentoring stage are of the kind that all arbcom members will decide are constructive and well intended, 'cause the committee members are sure to look. The three months of mentoring is in vain if his mentors do not unanimously agree that the problems identified in the last arbcom case appear to be able to put to bed safely, or if the arbcom members review his contributions over this period and come to the view that the problems remain, that he has hasnt done much here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@Troikoalogo, the notice was public, and hit AN, as it was a unanimous agreement of the mentors that in the last month, privatemusings had not cut the mustard. If we hadnt disclosed the "clock reset" publicly, two months from now we would have had people wondering why we hadnt notified everyone publicly at this stage. It seems like the only way to have streamlined this would have been to ask Arbcom to reset the clock instead of doing it ourselves. We live and learn. p.s. Privatemusings wished, and the committee agreed, to give me this plastic sheriff's badge.  :-) He is welcome to have it back if he likes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@NonvocalScream, your involvement in this has caused more complication and confusion than it has solved. You brought the matter to arbcom, so please dont complicate things further by boldy clerking the matter based on your "impressions" - we can do without that. As an update, privatemusings has now emailed the mentors so the train is back on the track. Mentoring discussion to check for structural damage is now getting underway, but may be protracted due to timezones and the heightened tension caused by this also being on arbcoms desk. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

@Yes, it definitely derailed what the mentors unanimously considered to be the right next step, and it prevented privatemusings from comfortably letting us know what he thought the (different) direction he thought it should take. We are not trying to be arbitrators, but if we dont undertake to mentor properly, the arbitrators will be less likely to let others out of their bonds early onto the path to enlightenment. I can see why you consider this to be an unapproved extension of the remedy, but at the time it seemed plain that privatemusings was in full knowledge of this when it was being discussed, and had spectacularly forgotten more recently and when he had to be reminded of it at User:Privatemusings/A walk on a path in a garden#Talk:Giovanni di Stefano. I agree that the mentoring plan should have been onwiki a long time ago, and sent to arbcom-l formally to ensure they were 100% happy with it. But those things didnt happen, out of laziness and the lack of foresight, and we find ourselves here. I dont mind if you go remove the notice from the arbcom page, but I dont see why it is necessary. There are clerks who can do that. It would be great if you let us untangle it, or hand it over to arbcom to untangle. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the remedy state "solely for the purpose of editing biographies of living people" or something to that effect? If the mentorship agreement stipulates a wider area of supervision, it has nothing to do with the Arbitration Committee. Also, and importantly, this seems premature. Privatemusings hasn't had the opportunity to make his view known on that page.

Noting Durova's post below, it seems likely that Privatemusings agreed to the extension. Nonvocalscream - in the future, it might be good sense to contact the participants involved before posting a clarification request in a situation where you do not have all the relevant facts. Avruch ^T 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

John is correct: Lar's proposal allowed discretionary extension within the realm, broadly defined that could reasonably be considered what arbcom was worried about. All parties agreed that extension was appropriate, including Privatemusings.

A summary of the matter is that Privatemusings has a track record of intervening in high tension areas in a manner which--although well intentioned--tends to consume administrative attention. Editors who are successful participants in Wikipedia namespace have usually acquired an intuitive grasp of site dynamics from article building. We are in agreement that Privatemusings would benefit from more mainspace editing experience, preferably sustained attention to building a single biography article. Our goal is a guided approach that would leave Privatemusings well equipped to function independently at the end of the mentorship term. A review of the first month led to the conclusion that not enough progress had been made yet.

Request withdrawal of this motion. We aim to reduce onsite drama, not increase it, and the decision was reached with unanimous agreement. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To Dan: assume good faith is policy. Before attempting to attribute a negative motivation, an appropriate prelude would be consultation with any of the parties or at least a review of the editor's contributions. Privatemusings has averaged approximately one mainspace edit per day since mentorship began, mostly minor wikignome work. It is our opinion that two more months' mentorship at this level would be insufficient. Editors who take on the site's hot button disputes, sensitive BLPs, etc. and make difficult situations better are usually people who bring experience from thousands of mainspace edits--often having shepherded articles from stub-class to GA or FA. The concern is that PM's interest in resolving such situations, unless tempered by better field experience, runs a likelihood of missteps that would ultimately lead either the community or the Committee to a pragmatic assessment of his productivity as an editor v. the scarce administrative time consumed by his attempts to assist in sensitive areas. We, the mentors, wish him success and have agreed upon this course of action with his consent. Durova^Charge! 03:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To Nonvocal Scream: mentorship is by its nature a consensual relationship. Declared or undeclared, mandated or voluntary--it cannot be effective without the consent and active participation of all parties. It works best in an environment of trust and goodwill. Privatemusings's best interests ought to be our driving concern, not the establishment of formal statements about the legitimacy of this or that adjustment. Good mentoring responds naturally to changes in circumstance. I think I speak for all the mentors here in saying it would be much more constructive to engage us in dialog if such serious concern arises again about our mutual choices, rather than initiating preemptive formal motions that--even at best--must consume energies better spent on mentoring itself. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly pleased with what can be seen as a punitive action against somebody for the sole reason of their sticking their neck out with a WikiPolitical opinion that others find politically incorrect. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To Dan: I agree 100% with you, I'm not at all about punitive actions. However this action is not punitive. Per Durova, we're (by mutual agreement, including that of Privatemusings himself) taking him on a path to enlightenment. That includes aiding PM in improving situational awareness about what's prudent and what isn't. A mentorship does after all include some actual learning by the mentoree or else it's not successful. We probably should post the email that outlines our mutually agreed upon approach, though. I note that the three of us are not always on the same side (of anything) and yet we mutually agree PM acted imprudently here. Mentorships work best when the elbows of the mentors aren't jiggled. Agree with Durova that this motion is ill advised and should be shelved. NVS no doubt knows better now, although I think he meant well. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To NVS: A clarification: ArbCom does not enforce remedies. We, the collective users of the site, do. If this mentorship fails (and I really hope it does not... we did not do this reset because we want failure, we did it because we want success!) it will be up to us (1500 admins, millions of users) all to enforce the rest of this decision. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

For reference: User:Privatemusings/A_walk_on_a_path_in_a_garden/A_threefold_path_to_enlightenment (a subpage of where the article specific discussions have been held) This process was agreed to in advance via email. Perhaps it should have been documented on-wiki rather than privately, but privately seemed a good approach at the time for "respect for the individual" reasons. ++Lar: t/c 14:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A note: Durova, Jayvdb, and I have continued to discuss this with Privatemusings. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to reflect here on how far off the initial path we have come. The free culture movement began with copy left software and now has Wikipedia as its most public example. The opposite of free culture is called in the movement "permission culture". Stop asking permission. Create. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If PM wants to enter into a private agreement to be mentored in orange-eating ((c) fayssal - below) then that's his affair. But when his orange-eating regime is then posted in large letters on government buildings as if it were a wanted poster, then the citizens are entitle to ask "WTF?".

If a private agreement, why was this posted on arbcom enforcement (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings#Privatemusings_placed_under_mentorship)? And why did it need posted to AN [28] as if it were a sanction for PM's postings about Moulton's block. A private agreement, should be a private agreement, and a matter for e-mail and talk pages. The effect of the way this has been handled is at variance with Durova's stated intent "to reduce onsite drama, not increase it" - it looks official and putative and has an obvious chilling effect.

The intention may be good, the mentorship unobjectionable, but I still think that some people have let the plastic sheriffs' badges go to their heads. --Troikoalogo (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In a few hours time, barring objections, I'll post all the email correspondence to subpage in my mentoring area (this has been discussed a bit between the four of us, and my reading is that permission has been clearly granted - but it's better to be safe than sorry! In fact, I'd say some commentators thus far have probably been a bit 'hasty'. I don't think I agree with some that's been said, and I'll write stuff up in a bit. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't post the email correspondence, because I'd misunderstood, and I don't have permission. I'd like to edit unencumbered by an arbcom restriction as soon as possible.

I understand my mentors' worry that my post to AN was impolitic / unwise, and I further understand the point of view that posting controversially can waste resources, is in someways disruptive, and undesirable, though I think it's a rocky road, and by no means fully agree.

I need to talk through more fully the perspectives that my mentoring programme has been disappointing, or that I haven't kept my end of the bargain, because I don't really understand them yet (I've actually been really pleased and proud with what I've been up to!)

there may be merit in arb.s clarifying how they see the 90days working from their perspective (per Nonvoc's final point above), and if there's any stuff folk want to chat about, swing by my talk page or drop me an email any time. Privatemusings (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)although I think an eggshell ballet may work out better for me than making omelets! - and better yet! - go write an article :-)

ps. just 'cos it might actually be relevant, I should note that I'm heading out, likely for at least 24 hours, now :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@bainer - the answer is kinda sorta... you can see the correspondence here... I should have taken the time to respond more substantially to the tension between the arb mandate and the mentoring terms previously, and I really think that any miscommunication is my fault - hopefully we're moving on now on a good foot :-) I certainly wish to edit unencumbered by an arbcom restriction as soon as possible. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the way we can avoid drama is to keep most of our edits in article space. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

When I saw the addition of the "mentoring extension" notice at the bottom of the "Moulton unblock" thread, it seemed to me, by the placement and the wording, that the extension was caused by Privatemusings' request for the unblock of a controversial user. Now, obviously from what's been said since, that's a complete misread of the circumstances--but it's also clear that I wasn't the only one who misread it that way. Had the notice of mentorship been placed somewhere less-proximate to the Moulton thread, I wonder if this confusion and the resulting drama might not have been avoided. Just an opinion, anyway...Gladys J Cortez 21:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding NVS' stated intention to clear the extension from the logs of the arb case, I encourage the arbs to address this issue in their ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• If Privatemusings entered into a mentorship agreement that was broader in scope than what the Committee mandated, then as Avruch says, that is his business, not the Committee's. That then begs the question of what did Privatemusings agree to? I await his input here before saying anything more. --bainer (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I gather these are the terms that the mentors and PM arranged. It purports to create a mentorship scheme applying to two things, firstly any proposed edits to BLPs, and secondly "any posts, broadly construed, that might fit into 'what ArbCom was worried about' (cases, policy and the like)". It also provides for the mentors to reset the process. This goes beyond what was mandated by the motion. What was mandated was mentorshop "[s]olely for the matter of editing [BLPs]" (emphasis added). Further, the motion provided for expiry in ninety days "[i]f no issues arise"; this was not particularly clear, but it should be understood to mean that the Committee can extend the mentorship if issues arise.

Of course, as has been said PM and his mentors are free to agree to terms of mentorship that go beyond what the Committee mandated, and if they wish to do so then I wish them all the best. However, from the circumstances, I do not think that is what has happened here; I believe that PM and his mentors have constructed terms on a misapprehension about the meaning of the motion. The mandated mentorship is limited "[s]olely for the matter of editing [BLPs]", and does not extend to "cases, policy and the like". If we had intended that we would have said so.

I think now PM and his mentors need to work out some terms once more with the understanding that the mentorship mandated by the Committee extends only to editing BLPs and is subject to review by us at the end of the ninety days. --bainer (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Apologies to Privatemusing and NVS if my comment would sound inappropriate but I am sure you would understand that it is meant to clarify some interesting issues related to drama. The drama goes this way... Once upon a time, there was someone who ate chocolate more than his body could afford, so the doctors advised his parents to keep monitoring his chocolate diet until the body becomes able to fathom and get adapted to some degree of chocolate consumption. Recently, he started eating oranges (in a normal way - no exaggeration yet) and immediately their neighbors went asking doctors to clarify if eating oranges is permissible. fayssal / Wiki me up® 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Per Thebainer, this was a voluntarily entered into agreement. Having in effect delegated to the mentors the responsibility of overlooking Privatemusings' contributions it would not be right to supervise them excessively in so doing. So I'm not inclined to intervene; however I would say this. Suppose (for the sake of argument, I'm not saying this is something he would actually do) Privatemusings had gone blanking large sections of history articles that had nothing to do with living people. That would be disruptive; is it argued that the mentors must ignore it because it is not about BLPs? I don't think that's reasonable. Finally, logs of blocks and bans should be kept up to date and not blanked unless authorised by the committee or its clerks. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I support John, Durova, and Lar's approach to handling this mentorship. In general a mentor's close working relationship with their trainee, even during a focused one such as this one, necessitates them keeping an eye on other aspects of their trainee's contributions. In this situation in particular, getting to the root of the problem is important if PM is going to succeed as an editor on Wikipedia. While this mentorship was formed to focus on the removal of the BLP restriction, the other concerns identified in Privatemusings case indicate that simply educating about the BLP policy and monitoring PM's contributions is most likely not going to achieve the enlightenment needed to succeed in editing BLPs. For mentorships to succeed, a broader approach is often needed, and I think John, Lar, and Durova understood that going into the situation. For example, a discussion about good communication methods and then coaching a trainee in ways to achieve their desired goals through good communication is appropriate during most mentorships and is key to the success of this one. Based on my view about mentorships, I see no need for us to alter the wording of the motion, but if others disagree then I think we need to expand the wording to give them free reign to do what is needed to achieve the best outcome. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• I trust all the mentors here, individually and even more so as a group, and see no need to change the wording of the mentorship agreement. And, no, no messing with logs of blocks and bans. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

---

Involved users

• Scott Free (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), initiator.
• Tenebrae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Evidence and links

• User talk:Tenebrae#FYI 4.

Having been banned from editing said article, while maintaining the freedom to edit the article's talk page - are there any arbcom restrictions that prevent me from doing archive maintenance on said talk page? My reasons for wanting to do so are:

There was a lot of old discussion threads starting to accumulate - I archived them (respecting the pre-existing, consensused archiving structure), keeping the most recent thread- I don't see the problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=237152156&oldid=236990123

It was alledged that I was doing so, I gather, in bad faith - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse#John_Buscema

As explained above, that wasn't my intention, and in fact, no proof of such allegations were provided. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse#No_one.2C_banned_or_otherwise.2C_should_be_removing_legit_talk_page_edits

I was blocked for this, although the administrator's interpretation that I removed legit talk page edits is, I believe, incorrect. I bring this to Arbcom clarification because I think that this is more a question of arbcom ruling interpretation than one of conduct issues to the extent that I have been able to demonstrate that my archiving edits were done with reasonable respect to existing consensus and archiving guidelines with a willingness to civilly discuss any differences of opinion on the matter.

--Scott Free (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

PS - Here's the page previous to my archiving - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Buscema&oldid=231305105

Here's how I archived it - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Buscema&oldid=236917151

--Scott Free (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It may seem lame to people constantly involved in controversial socio-political disputes with heavy policy violations - However, I do believe the question is genuine - there's some uncertainty as to the question of where archiving stands in the parties' rights to edit the talk page. It would take just as much time to answer the question than to explain why one doesn't feel inclined to. I.E. it's not that the question can't be worked out, it's just that one party genuinely feels that archiving isn't allowed according to the arbitration decision.

In general, part of the problem is that there's a lack of understanding of the arbitration process and certain guidelines on both sides - I don't feel that strongly about archiving per se - asking someone else to do it is probably impractical as I think the situation has scared everyone away and there are no active editors on the article beside the two parties.

In general if a party feels that a request is beneath their dignity, that's cool by me, just don't respond to it - let the people who have a sincere motivation to help out with this question address it, no rush.

--Scott Free (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to Rlevse - Ironically, I thought that the manner in which Tenebrae and JGreb's obected to my archiving was a relative improvement over previous reactions. I agree with your take on the archiving situation but disagree with the rest. A few points -

a- I expressed my disagreement with Elonka's intervention, but didn't think much of it at the time.

b- When I requested that she not close a subsequent arb enforce req, I eventually noticed a certain 'snippiness' among the other admins who closed the following reqs., but didn't make much of it.

c- When I came across this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elonka

I realized that I wasn't the only one with objections to certain methods - i.e. though the situations are different, I had noticed similar attitudes as expressed by editors such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elonka#Comments_by_Mathsci and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Elonka#Outside_view_by_MastCell - with some 30 odd editors agreeing with these statements, I don't think my own complaints were necessarily groundless.

d- I also noticed that the same admins. who closed my reqs. displayed noticeably strong support for Elonka. I AGF, but will say that there can conceivably be an appearance of that situation having a negative influence on this case.

e- Ergo, if the experimental 'zero telorance, heavy enforcement' policy championed by Elonka is being used on this case, I feel that this is the wrong approach. I think that something like the opposite approach would be more effective i.e. de-dramatize, with a calm, patient, civil response to enforce and clarification reqs with suitable explanations.

PS - Damage control To Fassal, Gordon, NYBrad - re- lame ridiculous - I don't think that kind of response really helps the case. civility, civility,civility - decorum, decorum, decorum.

NYBrad - re: blocks because of edit-warring - no, no, no - the allegation is wrong - kindly provide evidence if you have those kind of statements to make.

PPS - I don't consider this me bickering with Tenebrae situation - JGreb's post-arb involvement, I don't consider to be from an uninvolved, neutral, objective adminstrator, and he has contested my edits as much as Tenebrae. I've pretty much given up on the situation - I.ve tried to negociate with the specific 'clique' - unsuccessfully - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scott_Free&oldid=190564687

but basically what put the nail in the coffin are comments like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Buscema&diff=203399620&oldid=203367899 - mainly the last few parts - it doesn't sound to bad, but in the context of the subject, they're major restrictions IMO, and read like a kind of anti- featured article manifesto - I can't deal with that, I just don't what to make of it. Basically, all I want is to continue popping in from time to time with minor edits without people freaking out.

--Scott Free (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

First, my thanks to Rlevse for notifying me; I've had a close death in my family, haven't logged on in awhile, and would not have thought to visit this page on my first foray back. Thank you.

In terms of any dispute with Scott Free: I'd simply notified the Arb committee of a unilateral action involving his removal of contentious postings with which he was involved. Because of questionable past actions on that editor's part (the Nationmaster episode, for example, in which admin Emperor rebuked him), this gives an image of impropriety. A third-party arbitrator, mediator or Comics Project volunteer could easily have been asked to archive in a disinterested, trustworthy fashion.

Rather than engage in argument with Scott Free, I responsibly sought an objective opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

•   Question: Would the Committee like this thread removed and archived, what with the overwhelmingly negative response to date?
  Standing by for direction, Anthøny ✉ 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It needs to stay here long enough so the party who made the request has a chance to read the responses. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Archiving the talk page is allowed, but don't squabble over it. What the arbs are essentially saying is that if you two can't even get along regarding the talk page, there are serious problems here. You two have been at each other for at least a year now and if you can't resolve your differences very quickly, a complete ban for both of you from the article AND its talk page may be in order. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I would say 'this is lame'. Regardless of the intentions of anyone, prevention is better than cure. There's no bureaucracy in leaving a request at the bottom of the talk page asking for archiving old discussions. fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Lame, per FayssalF. Err on the side of non-annoyance. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Per FayssalF and Jpgordon. If the editors on this non-controversial article can't even agree about how to archive the talkpage without edit-warring and blocks, the situation has become ridiculous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Best to move on past this as the other arbs say. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

---

---

Just another reminder that this page continues to lack the evidence page. You did say you'd get to that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, that's very well, but, if it's who I presume it was, he had explicitly drawn the connection for months, gave a stated reason for the change that only involved his signature, and only sought to conceal the connection in retrospect well after I linked. I don't want to reveal too much information, obviously, so I'll say no more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(to FloNight, mv from arb section)...**Is this to do with linking to the request for comment or whatever it was under one user's old username? Because said username did not appear to have any apparent real-world connection, and that the change happened was freely stated in several places, including a publicly-filed request for the change that mentioned no issues with the previous name. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the deleted history of the page and don't think restoration would be prudent. in addition to the breach of your own privacy by Anthon01 (talk · contribs) (which as far as I'm aware has been oversighted), there is also an "outing" of another contributor present in a non-trivial amount of revisions. The page serves little purpose now for dispute resolution or maintaining the institutional memory around here, so it's not really worth taking the time to sanitize the history and make it public again. east718 // talk // email // 22:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also reviewed the deleted page, independent of east718, and the outing of another contributor jumped out of the page nearly as soon as I started reading it. Ignoring GFDL concerns, I do not see how a coherent page version, let alone a page history, could be formed without creating an odd looking set of evidence. Since the case is well over, and all that stuff is water under a bridge, I don't see a need to try and piece the past together. MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to quote from the WP:OUTING policy:

It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

I am not aware of the facts and circumstances of that editor being renamed, but from the context of the deletion, comments then, and subsequent comments, it appears that quote may be relevant. MBisanz ^talk 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The problem was tit-for-tat "outing" - in which you the requester was involved, I should say - going back to very early revisions of the page which would be almost impossible to clean up. The deleted revisions may be accessed if necessary for any future arbitration issue. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Not having the evidence readily available is not ideal but necessary in this instance, at least for now. The task of making the evidence viewable to all users in is some form will be difficult and time consuming. It will remain on my to-do-list, but do not expect it to be done anytime soon as it is a low priority item compared to my many other Committee tasks. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• This request appears resolved per discussion above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---

---

Can a page, perhaps WP:Topic bans or the like, be created to coherently set these out? They don't appear to have any coherent explanation, that can be linked to. It is my impression that admins, following appropriate discussion, are also authorised to impose topic bans, in lieu of a block, so having a coherent explanation that can be linked to would be helpful, and it probably shouldn't be an arbcom-specific page - though I'd suggest the Arbcom are in a good position to start it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't topic bans already well covered in Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions and Wikipedia:General sanctions? Can we not create more lists of things Arbcom has done that people don't read anyway?

We also have the very useful {{Uw-sanctions}}, {{Article probation}}, and {{Sanctions}} and the various templates in Category:Wikipedia Arbitration enforcement templates as tools for this sort of enforcement. MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

@Guy, okey, I'll try to draft something up :) MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okey, a redirect saves me work :) MBisanz ^talk 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the statement I made at my last topic ban (when I was an administrator) "For continued and sustained disruption on Kosovo-related articles during the past month or so, you are now banned from all Kosovo-related articles for 14 days. This ban extends to any talk pages of any major Example-related talk page or user talk pages where incivility is displayed, especially Talk:Example and User talk:Example. If you breach this ban by making edits in these areas, you could face a block of an then-to-be determined length, or renewed sanctions. You are however, free to make edits anywhere else on Wikipedia. Some comments that have been used to provide a basis for this block are: (1, 2, 3 and 4). This topic-ban has been logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Example." As I wrote it then, in response to a request to have it reduced, "Topic banning in general is to provide all contributors with an equal chance to discuss how an article may be modified, by removing users who are either disruptive or messing around intentionally. [Reminding them] that now [they] have had warning and community feedback on [their] actions so far, that [their] behaviour must not violate any policies here on Wikipedia: namely not to make any personal attacks, or to impose restrictions on other users contributions, to remain civil during discussion, make sure all contributions don't come from specifically [their] point of view and represent interests of the article, assuming good faith (for example when someone makes a mistake, it's not always intentional) and not to revert anyone else's changes on more than three occasions." That is my interpretation anyway. Caulde 17:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Has not this topic been resolved per the advice given above and below? Caulde 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, where is your WP:BOLDness? A topic ban is, to a good first approximation, what the community decides it is, so why not give us a draft? Guy (Help!) 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is easy. Wikipedia:Topic ban is now a redirect to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions. --bainer (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Per Bainer. I've already clarified this point a few days ago here. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 02:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• This request appears resolved per discussion above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've just created WP:Topic bans as a redirect to the same page mentioned above. That page, and its associated talk page, would seem to be the best place for this discussion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Look like this has been satisfactorily answered by the above comments and redirects. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

---

---

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

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samiharris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notifications: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

A recent article in The Register [34], confirms that Gary Weiss was behind the Mantanmoreland and Samiharris accounts and was editing Wikipedia for bad-faith purposes. I request that ArbCom add a finding to the case acknowledging that Gary Weiss was behind the sockpuppeting and POV-pushing that these accounts were engaged in. Also, I request a remedy be added stating that Gary Weiss (the person) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(to Sir Fozzie) I disagree. I believe we use this to make it clear that Wikipedia is not open to this type of abuse. This kind of nonsense is a severe threat to Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. It might could be argued that it is outside ArbCom's lane to make statements like this. To that, I respond that they should do it anyway and we can sort it out later, as currently ArbCom represents the top layer in Wikipedia's policy and guideline enforcement of editor behavior. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is going to surprise others, especially with the fact that I started this whole thing AND I am quoted in the article (twice, one of which was a previous quote re-used), but I do not support this suggestion. It smacks way too much of above and beyond punishment. We don't normally publicize the name of banned users, ESPECIALLY as a formal statement by the Arbitration Committee. If the person involved creates a new account (and it's proven.. I'm not talking about a certain current account that I have many doubts about, but nothing I can prove yet), then they will be given the bum's rush off of Wikipedia toot suite. We've spent years on this, through all the battles. Let's let old grudges lie, until such time as it's NECESSARY to bring it up. SirFozzie (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---