Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130


Request for clarification : Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science (March 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


Statement by Hipocrite

SirFozzie "clarified" this case here. Is this valid? How could an outside user looking in know this was valid? Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment to ArbCom
Thank you for your haste in dealing with this. It is appreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The topic ban placed on ScienceApologist has proven highly problematic. It has lead to intense wikilawyering and campaigning for blocks on WP:AE.[1][2][3][4] The Arbitration Committee was appointed to decide difficult cases. Decide. Don't fob your responsibilities onto the admin corps. No two users seem to agree on what the topic ban covers. Does it cover a simple article on plants, such as Atropa belladona? Can SA work on an article like Gamma-ray burst? If SA finds unsourced WP:OR in that article, can he remove it? SA has many antagonists who are ready to jump in and claim that SA is violating the topic ban. The decision in this case has made a total mess at WP:AE. You've made the situation worse rather than better. Jehochman Talk 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie can't be sanctioned because impersonating ArbCom isn't a crime. Everybody knows he's not ArbCom and that he doesn't have the power to modify a remedy. He can certainly express his common sense view on what a remedy means, which I think he did quite well. The sanction handed down was naive because it failed to understand how heated and wikilawyerish the fringe science area is. Either you ban somebody completely or you topic ban them in a way that leaves little doubt. SA is a science editor. Virtually all science articles have some sort of fringe component. The ban as currently written might was well be a siteban if it is going to be construed that broadly. Jehochman Talk 21:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

There are two basic ways to interpret SirFozzie's action. First, as part of the normal discretion implied and neccesary in having to interpret terms such as "broadly construed" and the generally wide berth that admins are given to enforce arbitration remedies, or 2. as an extra-procedural, but I would argue correct modification to an Arbitration remedy.

The exact wording of the remedy is as follows: "3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles."

The key terms are "any article" and "broadly construed" The simplest and plain text reading of the remedy would allow any administrator to block ScienceApologist if he edits on any article that has any relation to fringe science, no matter how minute the relationship. This would include any edit on any such article, even the most uncontroversial. In other words, un-watchlist and walk away, you don't belong here. What others have interpreted it as is articles only tightly related to fringe science, or which the subject is fringe science - paranormal activity, UFOlogy, and so forth. Unfortunately, confounding the issue, some science is "fringe" in that it is generally not considered science, and some science is simply unpopular or in legitimate dispute (is my position that Pluto is a planet "fringe?"). In addition, this would also mean that edits that in themselves concern fringe science, are not restricted. Thus, an edit to Chinese culture is not restricted, even if it is to say "Chinese medicine is a pseudoscientific fraud" - which is clearly related to fringe science topic, but is not a fringe science article.

Fozzie's interpretation more accurately addresses what I believe was the intent of the committee: to keep ScienceApologist from editing on topics he has shown a history of problematic behavior, and thus the edit itself should also fall under the microscope. Otherwise, in order to make the restriction effective, we must go with the plaintext reading, leaving ScienceApologist topic banned from any article that touches the subject of fringe science or fields that are pseduoscientific, or have been related to fringe science in present or past, because of the wording of "broadly construed" - or we can use a common sense approach in reading the topic ban. Excessive obsession over wording minutiae leads us away from the obvious, but I will indulge anyway to point out this: both Bainer and Coren referred to the "topic area" which implies it is the content itself, not the title of the article, that is the problem.

It is my opinion that SirFozzie's clarification serves an obvious purpose: he is essentially publishing his interpretation of the remedy's intent and wording, and thus putting upfront under what conditions he as an administrator will block under - and other admins can endorse his opinion (as I do now) as the interpretation they will use.

If it is the opinion of the Committee that SirFozzie's action was confusing or distressingly extraprocedural, the solution is to quickly come to a clarification, preferably one endorsing SirFozzie's interpretation. Let me remind the Committee however, that Aribtration Enforcement is a difficult matter, and the administrators need a great deal of support, and as this request for comment has shown, the administrators are not getting it. It is the natural result of this situation that AE admins are left to make interpretations on the fly and on the ground - and that overriding such a decision should only be done when there is significant need. If the Committee chooses to disagree significantly and say so, it should also be the first of many acts showing the dedication of the Committee to become more responsive and involved in the administrator work done to enforce Arbitration decisions.--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is not improving the encyclopedia by making typo fixes in a topic banned area. Perhaps he was trying to, and I'm sure the fixes themselves were helpful, but the level of drama and disruption that was inevitable and likely planned has NOT improved anything. Improve the encyclopedia does not mean "I'm right, and the rest of you can go to hell." That attitude belongs in your own private space and work.--Tznkai (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist

One solution may be to simply lift the topic ban. There was another proposal called "3.2" that was gaining traction (maybe) but the arbitration closed before all arbitrators had a chance to consider it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1.1 is pretty good as it makes others accountable for fringe science while enabling me to continue editing the 5 to 10 articles I normally edit each week. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by DreamGuy

I almost posted to the ArbCom decision page to ask how on earth some random admin thought he had the authority to rewrite the text of one of the conclusions and present it as if it were valid. ArbCom should be the ones doing that stuff. He is certainly within his rights to suggest a rewording to ArbCom, but it should be explicitly agreed upon by all the people who voted for the conclusion or else it has no validity. I don't care what the issue is, it's a matter of principle and simple functioning of this site in general. The reason I didn't post originally is I figured it's probably what Arbcom intended and they could certainly object to it when they saw it, so this specific issue isn't my concern. Admins can't just unilaterally rewrite ArbCom decisions, and especially not admins with histories on conflict with the person it'd affect, and I can't believe it's even necessary to have to clarify that to people, but I guess it is. Admins who pull things like this should be firmly warned and removed if anything similar happens again. DreamGuy (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It'd be very helpful if some of the people responding here took a minute to read and realize this is not an arbitration request on ScienceApologist. It's a request to clarify a single admin can take it upon himself to rewrite an ArbCom decision. Whether the text of the rewrite itself makes sense is a side issue (people can agree that it would make a good clarification without agreeing on whether it the edits were made properly), and everything else is a completely off-topic tangent that doesn't belong here. 18:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Middle 8

What Chillum said. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And this gem from ScienceApologist himself. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment re Dreamguy's admonition

Some of us (including some arbs, cf. below) evidently want to expand the discussion to the root of the problem. No offense intended.

Concurrence with User:ImperfectlyInformed

My experiences have been similar to I.I.'s, including being the target of one of SA's frivolous WP:AE actions. [5] Those are a lot more worrisome to me, in terms of the topic ban, than the correction of spelling errors. SA has continued in his battleground mode, trying to make life as miserable as possible for those whose content views he opposes (and I also agree with I.I. that for a supposed "science editor" SA is remarkably parsimonious in his offering of sources, instead preferring to edit war over contentious language).

ArbCom and WP:AE admins not on the same page

WP:AE admins are declining to sanction SA for valid complaints users have brought over his continued misconduct: and I don't mean just the spelling errors, I mean SA's frivolous complaints to AE, which are self-evidently escalatory and vengeful. [6] Reasons for admins' lack of action seem to include their disagreeing with the decision and therefore refusing to enforce it (shouldn't they just recuse in that case?), opting to err on the side of decorum over difficult enforcement decisions, and not quite knowing what balance to strike in terms of whether to be gentle or firm with SA in the wake of his just having been through Arbitration. I certainly understand that AE admins' jobs are not easy, but it would be good to "get everyone on the same page", and in that light Coren's comments below are helpful (as was Sir Fozzie's attempt to move toward clarity).

ScienceApologist still adheres to his M.O.

In his words: "I'm not at all convinced that the way I've been doing it clearly won't work. It is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic." [7] I'm sure he genuinely believes this; the problem is that (a) he has some qualities of a WP:FANATIC, and does a poor job of deciding who is really a problematic editor (ImperfectlyInformed? Seicer? Elonka? No, I don't think so), and (b) his approach is un-Wikipedian: if WP:POINT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVILITY mean anything, they mean we don't resolve disputes by chasing away editors with a stick. The germ of truth in his statement is that we do need to be stricter in policing content, but his approach is all wrong.

Compassion vs. enabling and double-standards

I also appreciate that SA is under a high level of wikistress and may be more likely to "act out", but consider that he's been "acting out" all along, and is merely continuing or escalating his existing pattern of bad behavior. Seems to me it's a deliberate "fuck you" to ArbCom and those who dare to disagree with him. Enough double standards and apologetics. Please take a firm stand on how handle this loose cannon of an editor. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

Sir Fozzie's action is an obviously valid interpretation of the arbcomm remedy. I thus fully endorse the first five paragraphs of Tznkai's comment.

Instead of the sixth paragraph, I note that the sort of boundary pushing and rules lawyering evidenced in the recent WP:AE threads is 1) what we've been seeing for months in this topic area, 2) therefore utterly unsurprising, and 3) the reason why some of those engaged in it are likely to end up permanently site or topic banned due to a demonstrated inability to edit productively in a collaborative environment. I think the encyclopedia would be better off if those caught up in battleground behavior change their editing habits and edit collaboratively with those with whom they disagree, but this sort of behavior, unchanged, is likely to end up with some of them site banned.

I also think Chillum's suggestion is likely what is needed to change this user's current behavior pattern - the boundary needs to be made very clear and any crossing of that boundary needs to result in sanctions. Currently the boundary we have is an article space topic ban, and Sir Fozzie's interpretation makes the boundary clearer so is a good step toward implementing Chillum's suggestion. The next step is enforcing it. GRBerry 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ImperfectlyInformed

The edit which brought this "clarification" is [8]. It's a typical edit for ScienceApologist, where he changed "a homeopathic mixture may have few to no molecules" to "there is none" and it obviously relates to fringe science, broadly construed. It's a fairly pointy and trivial edit; I don't see why this clarification is necessary. Other post-ArbCom edits include removing a reference that sodium lauryl sulfate is associated with canker sores [9]. That's not a spelling correction, and is more debatable. I think SA thinks it's fringe science. I would revert him on it, but I don't want to get into an edit war. The fact that I'm reluctant to contest this sort of thing, even though 3 studies have shown an association with SLS and canker sores (PMID 7825393, PMID 8811135, PMID 9656847 -- 2 research teams) while 1 has not (PMID 10218040), gives an indication of the degree to which: 1) ScienceApologist is willing to edit-war and 2) how willing he is to remove scientific studies which do not support his POV. Even if I were to present the balanced picture, there's a good chance SA would revert. Actually, the above is all false. Looks like he was just removing it from the lead. My apologies.

In other news, ScienceApologist has now decided to up his campaign of false allegations and bad faith:

  • He recently called for a community ban of me and called me a POV pusher and "terrible editor", but the only diff he was able to provide was of me noting through a source that casualty insurance, which includes liability as well as property insurance, is problematically defined.
  • He has said that "it is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic", and he seems to think that I'm one of those people [10].
  • The above allegations ignore the fact that I have probably done as much or more to suppress fringe science than he has, because I use references and clarify the facts. For example, I added the first critical reference on chelation therapy for heart disease [11] and recently summarized what the past studies have found [12], I used an old Science reference to shed some light on the origin of the laetrile controversy, I supported the categorization of alternative cancer treatments which put most of them into "disproven" or "scientifically implausible", based mainly on references, I suggested putting the systematic review of multiple chemical sensitivity which found no support that it's a physical condition in the lead, and I've clarified exactly what the National Research Council found on fluoride's toxicity -- which largely entailed showing that toxic effects to DNA and organs seem to occur, if at all, at a much higher dose than one will get in any dose from fluoridated water.
  • Most recently I've faced opposition from ScienceApologist for using references to show that one of orthomolecular medicine's pet therapies, high-dose vitamin E for heart disease, was debunked by two RCTs, one in 1950 and one in 1974 [13] and also, in that edit, clarified that the epidemiological studies finding lower heart disease among high vitamin E consumers was not orthomolecular, but mainstream. No explanation has been provided for removing the material, but it appears that I will have trouble working it into the article.

While no evidence has been provided of problematic editing on my part, people nevertheless feel entitled to assume bad faith of me because of ScienceApologist's unjustified mudslinging. The widespread misinformation campaign and frequent attacks has led to administrators who are afraid to enforce the Arbitration Committee's ruling, for fear of being tarred and feathered as fringe science promoteres and apologists. There is a widespread misconception that ScienceApologist does a lot of good work, when most of his edits are actually controversial not because they are good science, but because they are pointy and non-neutral. Good editors who combat fringe science such as User:Eubulides do not have major issues because they use references and present both sides. They are highly effective.

Since ScienceApologist feels so comfortable calling me a "terrible editor", I can honestly say that I can't recall ever seeing him add a reference, and I haven't been able to find any in a search of his contributions I've noticed that he very rarely adds references. If he wants to combat pseudoscience, using references is the way to go. A review of his contributions also shows that he has been editing fringe health science topics exclusively yesterday and today, although he also proposed Elonka for deletion. On the other hand, I add probably an average of 1-2 peer-reviewed journal references, often reviews, per edit. II | (t - c) 18:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass

Unless I've missed something here, I must endorse Dreamguy's position. Administrators cannot just alter Arbcom decisions willy-nilly according to their own interpretations. Surely such actions are reserved for this very "Clarifications" section! Whether SirFozzie's interpretation is right or wrong, it's a breach of process to go about it this way and that needs to be made clear. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ChildofMidnight

Speedy close. And as a side question, how many fairies fit on the head of a pin? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Statement by SirFozzie

This is a rather rough situation. The case involved, Fringe Science, closed about ten days ago. Since then, AE has been flooded with the same people, who are still fighting the same wars, in the same ways. We have a user, who's openly declared that he intends to push the boundaries of his topic ban in every way, shape and form possible.

ScienceApologist knew exactly what he was doing in his edits on the article Atropa belladonna. The plant itself may not be part of a strict reading of his topic ban, since a majority of the article wouldn't be considered "fringe science". However there is two mitigating factors in this. First of all, there is no doubt that his edit (on the homeopathic use of the plant ,or supposed homeopathic use), would generally fall under his topic ban. Secondly, he had been sanctioned under the Homeopathy ArbCom case as an AE action previously for this very same article, for the very same reasons. Now, admittedly, the sanction had been placed on him by an administrator he has a good amount of antipathy towards, but there is no doubt that he knew (or should have known) that this was either a violation of his topic ban, or at the very least, something he should have gotten clarification on before doing.

I decided that a firm clarification was necessary to ensure that the boundary was made clear. I made it clear that I did not speak for the Arbitration Commitee, or any of its members (In the interests of full disclosure, I did briefly discuss the situation with one member of the Arbitration Committee, but that was little more then a "I'm sure this will be kicked up to you" notice".)

I did not block SA, although many would argue I had good reason to at this point. Instead, I issued a clarification from myself as an AE admin, to make it clear where the boundaries are, to avoid him or his supporters claiming that I had "moved the goalposts on him" if a block had occured. I submit to the Committee that this is utterly uncontroversial. I did not re-write the decision, as people above me are claiming. I logged it in a section marked "Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.". That is what I did. I stated it was an AE action, not a "Speaking for ArbCom" action.

ScienceApologist has stated in various ways that he will continue to defy his topic ban. He made a statement as an announcement on his talk page that This user ignores all arbitration rulings made about him. and I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Wikipedia by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring. (From AE, diff coming shortly).

I apologize to the Committee for the length of my statement, and if anyone wants to summarize, I will move the remaining part of mystatement off this page

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The issue at hand is whether individual administrators have the authority to make interpretations of Arbcom's intent that are binding on other administrators. It is up to Arbcom to decide whether they want to allow this, but in either event they should make it clear. The specific concerns about SA's behavior should be dealt with separately after the larger issue is clarified, and there should be no sanction against the muppet Knight Batchelor for taking initiative in a gray area. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:William M. Connolley

If SA corrects a spelling error (or reverts clear and blatant vandalism) on a "fringe science" article, and someone blocks him for it, that will be stupid. If he does the same, and someone reports him to AE for it, they should be cautionned for being vexatious, and blocked for repeat offences William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:MaxPont

I sometimes see other users express surprise about the fact that ScienceApologist stir up so much controversy and that they don't understand why ScienceAplogist constantly is targeted by other users in ANI, 3RR, RFA, etc. I wonder why. It is obvious that ScienceApologist is gaming the system as much as possible and expresses strong defiance against the ArbCom[14]. I am surprised that the ArbCom tolerate this blatant challange of the authority and trust they have been given by the Wikipedia community. If the ArbCom don't make a swift and visible statement that spitting them in the face is unacceptable any troublemaker can copy this strategy and begin to ignore ArbCom rulings.

Statement by User:Abd

My conclusion from review of what SA has written about these edits is that he is deliberately pushing the edges of the topic ban, and that he's being supported in that by at least one editor. There is substantial evidence for disruptive intent. ("Harmless edits" to articles and sections covered by the ban complicate Arbitration enforcement, requiring discussion of edit content, plus SA has stated defiant intent claiming WP:IAR). I have suggested how SA could make truly noncontroversial edits such that I would vigorously defend his right to improve the project in such ways, without complicating arbitration enforcement, which would be self-reversion, allowing other editors to quickly incorporate truly non-controversial edits. When we topic-ban an editor, we lose something (possibly valuable contributions), and we only do it when it's considered necessary to avoid disruption. Here, disruption is being created, with the assistance of Hipocrite, who reverted the allegedly harmless edits, took matters to AE without necessity, and filed this request for clarification. I urge the committee to take this seriously, and to order the ban to be enforced strictly, but excluding edits promptly self-reverted or simply proposed in Talk. I will provide diffs for what I have asserted here in the collapse section below. --Abd (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

I'm practicing civil disobedience.[15]

I think it's time for a test case.[16]

Bans are legitimate only inasmuch as the community has abandoned WP:IAR, which, I believe, they have. What I believe this will comes down to is punishing people for correcting misspellings.[17]

  • Note that the community wasn't "punishing people for correcting mispellings." The problem with the minor corrections wasn't raised by general community members, who were mostly counseling ignoring these edits, but by SA's supporter, with SA's consent, to test the limits.

If the community doesn't want to enforce a topic ban, is it really a topic ban?[18]

  • SA knows that if minor corrections can be made, as if there were no ban, the toe is in the door.

I will continue to edit fringe science articles to improve them to protest the idiocy of arbcom as an object-lesson in how irrelevant and out-of-touch they are.[19]

This user ignores all arbcom rulings.[20]

I have decided that for the next six months, I will edit so-called "fringe science" pages to correct misspellings when I come across them. I am doing this as an act of civil disobedience. I do not believe it is WP:POINT violation because I do not believe I am disrupting Wikipedia by doing this. I also believe that I am in good standing with WP:IAR. I do believe that others will disagree with me, but I have grown past caring.[21]

  • If he believed that the edits were not disruptive, the ensuing flap, with multiple AE reports and this clarification request, should be ample evidence to the contrary.

SA has stated that he's practicing "civil disobedience." Those who do so know it is disruptive, and they expect to be arrested. Accordingly, even though normally SA would not have been blocked for minor technical ban violations that were truly non-controversial, some of the edits weren't so innocent,(see edit summary) and given the manifest disruptive intent, he should be short-blocked to confirm that ArbComm sanctions will be enforced, and he should be warned that continued violations, even if merely "technical," will result in further action. It is not about spelling.

(A self-reverted, non-disruptive edit should not considered violation, but merely a more efficient "proposed edit" than if in Talk, and any editor, taking responsibility, can then implement in seconds.) --Abd (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am seeing it asserted here, on User talk:ScienceApologist, and elsewhere, that SA was blocked and a ban seems to have passed because of harmless, helpful edits to articles. However, if the evidence I presented above is reviewed, the conclusion is inescapable that these "harmless" edits were intended to attack the topic ban by interpreting as mindless, testing it, then going to Arbitration Enforcement and here with complaints. The goal of these edits was not good spelling, but disruption. Too many editors have failed to notice that this request for clarification was filed by the editor who also reverted the small edits, claiming that they violated the ban, and who also filed the AE notices. That editor is a supporter of ScienceApologist, and an opponent of the ban, and they were clearly cooperating in this effort, as the evidence shows; alternatively, this editor did believe that the ban, even though a terrible idea, should be respected, but SA obviously was pleased that his testing of the ban is being noticed. Then, after the fully expected disruption occurs, it's again asserted that the edits are harmless. That so many editors have fallen for this trap demonstrates how "sectarian affiliation" can corrupt our thinking.

To nail this down, SA contemptuously rejected suggestion that he could indeed make those harmless edits, quickly, and with much more overall efficiency than the permitted Talk page edits. The reason is obvious: this would require voluntary cooperation with the ban, in order to improve the project in spite of it. SA can still improve the project, even if blocked, if that's his goal. I won't detail how unless someone asks. Too many words already. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Protonk

Abd has a point. There is a problem when a user violates the spirit of a topic ban by making innocuous edits (or, more accurately, edits which would be innocuous if made by any other user) which has the apparent effect of forcing administrators to ignore the topic ban (and weaken it in practice) or enforce it by blocking an editor for innocuous edits.

We can't know science apologist's state of mind, so we don't know if this is testing the water, practicing civil disobedience, or simply the course of normal editing by an editor with a powerful routine. As a practical matter, there isn't a difference.

We should not treat this as a discipline problem where we punish science apologist for flouting the topic ban, but we also shouldn't lift the topic ban on the premise that his 'good' edits within the topic area have made the band absurd. We should simply reassert the ban and expand it, and simplify its enforcement. If the previous band allowed him to edit science related articles linked to pseudoscience only peripherally, the new ban should just limit him to articles unrelated to science at all. Just say that if it is in the Science, math or medicine portals, he can't edit it, for any reason. If he violates it, then someone sends an email to the arbcom list and he gets blocked by an arb on behalf of the committee (To avoid any Giano style wheel warring shenanigans).

That solution is unpleasant for a number of reasons. It puts pressure on the arbs, of whom there are far fewer than they are admins watching AE. It broadly (and probably unfairly) restricts science apologist. It opens the door for other topic ban considerations.

But it avoids the appearance of a non-binding remedy. It avoids the inevitable spiral that flouting with topic bans brings. And it avoids the drama around blocking and reblocking a member of the community about whom many admins have strong feelings (whether they know it or not). Or, to be more fair to him, it is less that we have strong feelings about him and more that his struggle represents the balance in the encyclopedia as a whole between openness and rigor; between allowing cranks and banning dissent. In cases like that, the community becomes a relatively poor judge of conduct and the committee must step in.

Statement by User:Badger Drink

As everybody knows, an encyclopedia is a place where everybody feels welcomed at all times. If unrepentant tyrants of fact and the scientific method persist in their disruptive efforts to introduce and/or maintain an academically honest, intellectually valid tone to articles on fringe subjects, then these folk need to be shown the door. If they are so devoted to the scientific method, perhaps they can congegrate in a place that dedicates itself to pursuit of knowledge over whimsy - perhaps via brief written pieces - as comprehensive as possible whilst remaining focused and direct - dedicated to individual subjects. We can only hope that these heartless monsters, void of even a hint of sympathy for alternative flim-flammery, have not the unmigitated audacity to call that project an "encyclopedia". --Badger Drink (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Verbal

Yes, let's ban someone for improving the project. This ban will show how well ArbCom is functioning. Verbal chat 10:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement User:Deacon of Pndapetzim

I hope the Committee will use this clarification request to tighten the wording of the ruling and support SirFozzie's action. The wording of the ruling was little less than an open invitation to gaming and a recipe for confusion. If you set that kind of thing up, you gotta give the people you expect to enforce it leeway to uphold the ruling's spirit. SirFozzie's action was an attempt to do this. In my case, I wasn't quite sure the clarification would "stick", and added my support so that it might. If SirFozzie wished to be more judicious, he could have used Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and placed any restriction to the same effect. So it'd be the same, whether or not the Fringe science case explicitly ruled on discretionary powers.

SA was going out his way to exploit the wording to maximum effect. It's despiriting to see arbitrators actually debating the meaning of their own decision before they actually made it. I'd suggest this is a product of the propose and rush decision making process the ArbCom decided for some obscure reason was best way to do such things. There is a chance here for the Committee either to undermine SirFozzie or else reaffirm SirFozzie's good faith attempt to deal with this issue. It would be best if they did the latter.

... And also, it'd probably be good if -- for the sake of clarity -- one of the arbs launched a motion tightening the wording in the ruling. We're here now anyway. :) Note also that the wording is, I suspsect, particularly unclear to admins with a non-scientific background. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Queries about sanction proposals

@ John Vandenberg

1) "Any instances of misbehaviour during this three month period will be dealt with by an indefinite ban at the discretion of an individual arbitrator."
This would take it out of the community's hand. Is this intended?

@ all

2) "for the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means 'entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic'"
This doesn't clear it up. It is still unclear if edits about fringe science in articles not necessarily within the fringe science topic count. Also, remember not all admins are scientists who'll know what ... plants [for instance] are and are not subject to fringing.
3) "Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email."
How would an AE admin know of these clarifications? They would need to know if they're expected to enforce the ruling, surely.

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[22] Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Statement by User:Stephan Schulz

This is an amazing failure of ArbCom so far. Yes, SA is brusque. But he is an overall positive force for the project. Escalating and increasingly shrill punitive sanctions are not appropriate. As with the old ArbCom before the recent election, the main interest here does not appear finding a good solution that allows SA to resume productive editing, but to uphold the authority of the Committee no matter what. But real authority does not derive from process and the exercise of power, but from wise or at least well-considered decisions. This one does not work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to be honest. The longest block he ever had was 96 hours, and we're suddenly talking about 3 month and 6 month bans. I guess those who support motion 1 have a lot of private evidence to justify this. But then...there is nothing private about this; I guess they wanted to keep MaxPont happy (see also his statement above). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • As stated on the proposed decision page, I have recused on issues relating to ScienceApologist because of his role in helping set up the New York meet-ups and Chapter meetings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Recused. --Vassyana (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • First, the clarification proper: the topic ban is primarily meant to include article whose primary topic is fringe science and pseudoscience. The notation that the topic area is to be "broadly construed" is exactly that — the topic is off-limits for edition by ScienceApologist. This does not mean that every article that discuss fringe science incidentally or passingly are under the ban, but the sections or passages which do are covered. The ban isn't meant to include or exclude specific articles but a topic, wherever in articles it may be found.

    Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the restriction is meant to prevent ScienceApologist from interacting in topic areas where he has already shown difficulty maintaining the appropriate decorum, and where his interactions with other editors have been antagonistic and destructive. Editing around the spirit of the restriction by making minor or trivial edits in banned topic is a deliberately provocative maneuver of the kind that has been warned against in general. Such edits are not acceptable, despite the legalistic rationalization proffered (indeed, the invocation of WP:IAR is particularly egregious given that ignoring the behavioral community rules is what caused the sanction to be applied in the first place).

    ScienceApologist would do well to remember that the topic ban was implemented as a last resort to allow an otherwise good editor to continue contributing in areas where he is not so prone to cause disruption and drama— and that absent serious intent to correct the behavioral problems the only recourse left to the committee is the regrettable option of excluding him from participation entirely. I am dismayed and disappointed by his stated intent to ignore the restriction and am forced to remind him that this will inevitably result in a complete ban unless he changes tack immediately. — Coren (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Well said Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In my view, Sir Fozzie's clarification should not have been done as an Arbitration Enforcement action and logged at the case page, but should have been filed here as a request for the arbitrators to make the necessary clarification. Having said that, I would endorse such a clarification, as my comment at the section on the proposed decision page should make clear. i.e. The restriction should apply to any fringe science topic in any article. I will repeat here what I said there:

    Am supporting this because the previous behaviour for which ScienceApologist was sanctioned persists. If ScienceApologist can follow these conditions, can edit 'fringe science' talk pages civilly and productively, and work productively on other articles for six months, then a return to editing fringe science articles would be possible. If the behaviour persists on other articles, I would support extending the topic ban to other areas. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

    To expand on that: I supported the topic ban of ScienceApologist in the hope that he would restrict himself to civil and collaborative talk page edits regarding fringe science topics and articles, and would also work on other articles (such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and so on - there are a wealth of science articles out there that ScienceApologist could usefully edit). ArbCom cannot force people to move away from a contentious area and contribute in different areas, but if someone does persistently edit disruptively and tendentiously in the same area (and this doesn't just apply to ScienceApologist, but to others as well), then they are verging on becoming a disruptive single-purpose account. If ScienceApologist and others are only interested in editing fringe science and related articles, and are only here to fight over the articles without engaging in productive and collaborative editing, then they need to be fully topic banned, and blocked if they persist in such behaviour. Administrators should still use their judgment though - correction of typos, for example, can be ignored, and administrators should be able to judge when the line is crossed between helpful edits and engaging in disruption. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Enough said by Coren and Carcharoth. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Coren hit the nail on the head. If this continues a ban will be in order, quite simply. As Carc said as well, an admin cannot unilaterally change the meaning of a case. Wizardman 03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    • An addendum that I meant to write in earlier,but didn't: when I voted to support the topic ban, it was meant to be a topic ban. Fixing typos is blatantly trying to "slightly violate" it so that those that support SA can say "Oh, he was only correcting typos" when it was pretty clear that it was at best testing whether or not we were going to follow though on it. Not sure how my fellow arbs interpreted it when they supported, but when I see a topic ban, then the party better not be editing that topic, i don't care what the edit is. Wizardman 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The decisions of the Committee will often need to be interpreted by admins acting at arbitration enforcement, or some other relevant venue. It's entirely reasonable, and indeed desirable, for admins to be making note of the way that they are interpreting decisions when they take enforcement actions under them. However, SirFozzie's posting here had the potential for confusion, because of the use of the word "clarification", which is also used by the Committee for its requests for clarification process. Stating that he was making a note of his interpretation would have avoided the confusion. As to the substance of SirFozzie's interpretation, I agree with it.
On the related matter of ScienceApologist's ban, there seems to be some confusion, for some unknown reason. Under the ban, ScienceApologist "is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months." There are no exceptions. If an article relates to fringe science topics (whether this condition is met is a matter for the enforcing admin, or the consensus among enforcing admins where more than one admin is involved) then ScienceApologist may not edit it. Simple as that. --bainer (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • @Deacon of Pndapetzim, your second and third concerns apply to both motions 1 and 1.1. I do see room for further clarification with those, however my motion begins with three month of restricted editing, meaning we have time to work out the details on the topic ban that will follow. With regard to motion 1.1, the indefinite ban option would be in the hands of the committee. The community could still issue blocks of suitable durations as before, to deal with any arising issues quickly. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Motions

Motion to sanction ScienceApologist

Note: There are 11 active arbitrators (plus 4 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 6.

1) ScienceApologist is banned from Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Risker (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support; sadly, ScienceApologist seems to have confused this Committee's attempt at giving him an opportunity to contribute constructively with a game to be "won" or "lost". — Coren (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Three months actually feels light to me, I'd prefer six. But throwing in another motion will delay us further, the sooner this is passed the better. Wizardman 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. I regret that ScienceApologist's actions make this action necessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. As a direct consequence of the reaction to the topic ban. Would be prepared to review in one month's time. Carcharoth (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Unfortunately necessary, given the failure of the topic ban. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. No sign of a behavior change. Yesterday, I gave ScienceApologist 24h to see if some light appears at the end of the tunnel but unfortunately nothing has changed. See at 'Comments' sections below. As an aside note regarding the typos, I'd say it is behavior that should be fixed rather than typos because this is a collaborative project and making it look like a bloody battleground is really more harmful than leaving 2 typos unfixed —someone may fix them but ScienceApologist still has to fix his behavior.-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. pending alternate proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Abstain — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. For the moment. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Comments:
  1. I wouldn't have chosen to comment if there has been no 1.1. So, I am giving it another 24h to see if there would be any good signs of a change in behavior. So far, nothing has changed judging by what I've just read at ScienceApologist's talk page; same usual attitude plus a kind of temptation to use anonymous accounts for editing and a clear unacceptance of "the authority of the administrator making the block [and] the arbcom's insistence that the topic ban is reasonable in any way." ScienceApologist has still to understand fully that it is all about the attitude that harms collaborative editing and that is irrespective of whether it concerns anonymous or registered accounts. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    Just after coming back today ScienceApologist went to his talk page and started to alter Abd's posts by changing the whole content of the posts: 1) Here, ScienceApologist removed a whole post while keeping only one phrase which suits him. That is a violation of WP:TALK: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." ScienceApologist could just have removed all Abd's comments and that would be fine. 2) Then, ScienceApologist started to remove the posts and that is legitimate. However, he just replaced them with "'Comment by, Abd, cold fusion promoter removed." He then did it twice again before blanking his talk page. That's enough evidence that ScienceApologist believes he can still keep doing what he likes to do even under ArbCom lenses. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. I am therefore supporting a ban. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1.1) ScienceApologist is restricted from freely editing Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. He is not permitted to make any edit to any page in any namespace outside his own userspace, unless the page has been approved by the Arbitration Committee. Any instances of misbehaviour during this three month period will be dealt with by an indefinite ban at the discretion of an individual arbitrator.

The list of acceptable pages will be maintained on a protected page in his userspace. Requests to add pages to the list must be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email, and two Committee members must approve of any addition to the list. Any committee member may remove a page from the list, at any time, with a notification to his user talk page.

The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts after the three months of restricted editing. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    I do not see this as merely giving him another chance. It is an alternative approach to how he is restricted for the next three months. It is weaker than a full ban, but if he can endure editing only a limited number of articles, what do we have to lose? I doubt that it will take much time for us to approve a few articles for him to work on each week. If it is working well, but consuming too much of our time, we could ask another member of the community to do the approvals.
    This motion temporarily handles the ambiguity of the topic ban in an extreme way, and in a way that forces ScienceApologist to take a break from his typical editing pattern, and let others deal with the problems that he notices. If he doesnt, he is out. OTOH, I do appreciate that motion 1 will also give him time to clear his head, and will endorse that remedy if he does not like the look of motion 1.1, or if he rants and raves when he comes back from his block. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. in the interests of article building and neogtiating some form of consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Excessively complex; given our workload, we shouldn't be inserting ourselves into approving day-to-day edits. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Kirill. Also not happy at the indefinite ban clause. In principle, I think most ArbCom bans should be a maximum of one year, only rising to indefinite if the problems recur after that. Normal indefinite bans should be the purview of administrators and community ban discussions. Would be happy for some form of the above to take place after three months, or to be discussed during the suggested review after one month referred to in my comment above. Carcharoth (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Kirill, we gave him a chance with the topic ban, so we should he get another? Wizardman 10:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Kirill, plus (i) he's already had his chance with the topic ban and (ii) no indication whatsoever that he understands the problem with his behaviour. — Roger Davies talk 10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. No. I see no reason to expend so much effort to accommodate an editor that is not intent on being collaborative, as amply demonstrated. — Coren (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. See my rationale at the 'Comments' section above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above. (I will allow myself to point out ministerially that there is an ambiguity in the motion: in the clause "unless it is approved by the Arbitration Committee", does the word "it" mean the page, or the specific edit? The next paragraph suggests the former, but this might well be clarified. This comment can be removed if the wording is adjusted.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Motion to clarify the interpretative role of administrators

Note: There are 12 active arbitrators (plus 3 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 7.

2) Administrators are given interpretive leeway when reasonably enforcing arbitration decisions and are expected to explain their rationale at their earliest opportunity in discussion or edit summary. Formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Risker (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. — Coren (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Wizardman 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. This is to codify an understanding which has previously always been acknowledged in practice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per Sam. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Motion regarding SirFozzie

Note: There are 12 active arbitrators (plus 3 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 7.

3) SirFozzie has acted appropriately and within administrator discretion by interpreting the remedy and by clearly explaining his interpretation despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning. The Committee thanks and commends him for this, and his considerable past efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Risker (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Arbitration enforcement is often too thankless of a job. — Coren (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  4. Of course. Wizardman 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  9. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  10. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his record of contributions to the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  2. Abstain, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his fine record of contributions to the project. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  3. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for general clarification (March 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Statement by Hipocrite

The comittee did not adress clearly enough if it was appropriate for an admin to "clarify" ArbCom rulings by stating they were taking an enforcement action and then detailing their "clarification" on the arbitration page. Is this an appropriate action in the general case, or are clarifications to ArbCom rulings which change the wording of the rulings (as opposed to interpretations, which do not change the wording of rulings) only to be made by the comittee?

I agree with Arb Coren, below. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Hipocrite needs to stop beating a dead horse. The committee said what SirFozzie did was correct and individual arbitrators also stated that his interpretation was the correct one. It's therefore clear to just about everyone that SirFozzies "clarification" would be a good statement to look at when thinking of applying sanctions to SA in the future. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

The ruling had bred a pushmi-pullyu: on the one hand the committee states "formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification," but on the other hand commends SirFozzie for issuing a "clarification" (his original term[23]) on his own initiative. Such ambiguity tends to cause problems down the road. Arbcom could resolve this by clearly stating that SirFozzie was OK in this case because the policy was unclear, but in the future admins should not issue "clarifications" on their own initiative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Abd

If I'm correct, SirFozzie stated his own interpretation of the existing ban. If that had changed the ban, it would have been improper. If it had been proposed as a rule that other admins must follow, likewise. But for an admin to state how he interprets a ban, and thus how he would enforce it, is simply disclosure. It's not necessary to go to ArbComm to state how one is going to interpret the ban. If someone doesn't like it, it can be discussed, and only if there isn't ready agreement does an RfAr/Clarification become necessary. SirFozzie's interpretation was not a "formal clarification" and it had no binding power.

The ban, in fact, was not unclear in substance, it was deliberately broad, and if not for the tendency of certain editors to jump to AN/I or ArbComm when they disagree with something, there would have been little disruption. I was taken to AE by the editor who filed this RfAr, and the one that ended up with a ban on SA, based on a totally bogus claim I was harassing ScienceApologist, immediately after he asked me to stop (to stop what I wasn't doing), and before I had any opportunity to respond. SA is now blocked in a way that is directly connected to the actions of this editor, and if there is anything to look at here, it would be his behavior. However, controlling point: no due process, no attempts to resolve a dispute (what dispute?) at a lower level than ArbComm, and no emergency. The request should be quickly declined, before we get even more disruption. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Since everyone seems to agree that Sir Fozzie's "clarification" was actually an "interpretation", would someone just go change the word each time it appears in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Clarification of restriction on User:ScienceApologist (section title and two other places). I'd do it myself but that would create more useless drama given past history. GRBerry 18:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I thought the second and third motions did clarify this, but just to make things clear:
    • Administrators doing enforcement are allowed and encouraged to interpret the remedy as applicable. In particular, remedies worded to give leeway are meant to be tweaked to context (such as "construed broadly", "at discretion", etc).
    • Administrators are also expected to make that interpretation clear, and making that explanation conspicuous is a valuable tool to do so.
    • The log of enforcement is probably not the best place to do so, and in any case cannot change the wording of a committee decision without the assent of the committee. Changes that, in the opinion the the admins, should be done to the actual wording of the decision (as opposed to its interpretation) should normally be done here in a clarification request.
    • In context, then, SirFozzie did a reasonable interpretation but "published" it in such a way as to inadvertantly make it unclear that it was an interpretation and not an actual modification of the remedy. There was obviously no foul there, but the committee has reiterated the correct procedure. — Coren (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I will repeat what I said in the previous request for clarification: "The decisions of the Committee will often need to be interpreted by admins acting at arbitration enforcement, or some other relevant venue. It's entirely reasonable, and indeed desirable, for admins to be making note of the way that they are interpreting decisions when they take enforcement actions under them. However, SirFozzie's posting had the potential for confusion, because of the use of the word 'clarification', which is also used by the Committee for its requests for clarification process. Stating that he was making a note of his interpretation would have avoided the confusion. As to the substance of SirFozzie's interpretation, I agree with it." To that I would merely add that interpretation is a matter for consensus among the enforcing administrators, and where consensus cannot be reached, or where there is some doubt or ambiguity, a request for clarification should be made to the Committee. As to SirFozzie's posting, it seems that the interpretation note has been removed anyway, so that issue is moot. --bainer (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Not commenting on the specific case of ScienceApologist, but some thoughts in general:
    • Administrators should try to interpret our decisions reasonably, taking into account the wording of the specific remedy as well as its underlying scope and purpose;
    • Arbitration discussion on the /proposed decision page or elsewhere on the case pages may sometimes provide guidance as to what was intended, if it is unclear;
    • Where an editor may have been relying in good faith on an interpretation of the ruling that differs from that of an administrator on AE, the circumstance may call for a warning that the ruling has been misconstrued, rather than an immediate block or pageban;
    • The committee unanimously observed in the Zeq-Zero0000 case that "an administrator or other editor who takes an action in reliance on a good-faith, reasonable interpretation of an Arbitration Committee decision should not be subject to sanction for that action";
    • Where there is disagreement on how a ruling might best be interpreted, the issue can be discussed on AE or another appropriate page;
    • Where there is continued disagreement or the ruling is unclear on its face, a request for clarification can be filed on this page; Alternatively, although one arbitrator cannot speak for the committee, in certain circumstances it can be helpful to ask the arbitrator who drafted the decision for his or her view;
    • If possible, interested editors should review proposed decisions before they are finalized, and use the talkpage to alert the arbitrators to potential ambiguities at that time, thereby avoiding later disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Was about to suggest what GRBerry said, but I see Jehochman has commented out SirFozzie's clarification (rather than remove it entirely). On reflection, that is probably for the best, as my current view is that using words like "clarification" creates potential for confusion. I also think that such interpretations should only be logged at the case pages if an actual action has been taken. Merely stating what one admin's interpretation is of a remedy, doesn't really count as an enforcement action. If an admin needs to explain a block or warning carried out under the terms of a remedy, then that is the point at which to explain their interpretation. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to consider removal of admin access: Mitchazenia (April 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Notice to user [24]. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by FT2

User:Mitchazenia is a dedicated editor and admin (RFA link) who is extremely active in the Roads project, a busy area of the wiki.

Earlier today Mitchazenia posted this at ANI. A similar "I need to do this before I commit suicide" note and self-block was posted in february as well [25]. ANI discussion ensued under the title "threat of violence", in which a number of admins concurred that the personal issues aside, the disruptive effect of such posts was a problem. Mitchazenia appears to have calmed somewhat, but still by his posts, the issue seems to be ongoing despite this [26][27].

We don't usually do "cool down" blocks, or "stay away" blocks (theres a javascript "wikibreak" gadget that some find useful). I think it is right to ask the committe, with kindness, to remove Mitchazenia's bit. Rationale:

  1. Its a repeating problem. The user was okay a while, then it hit them again hard. Not the first time.
  2. The effect is disruptive.
  3. The user has said basically, they want/need outside help.
  4. The actions appear to be escalating, that is, if ignored the "cry for help" is leading to a spiralling effect (or seems likely to).
  5. The user is an admin, and instability in their judgement or balance may be more of a concern than it would be for a non-admin user.
  6. Users who have this big a problem have at times cracked. Some go badly sideways in extreme cases (which this may in fact be). It can be an important factor, that we remove the stress before that point so we don't lose a productive user, nor the user an enjoyed activity and long-standing reputation.
  7. Many users who have sysophood, comment that adminship can be stressful. It is possible that if adminship were removed the user would be less stressed, perhaps, and certainly the disruption and escalating actions to gain a block, would probably be averted.

For these reasons, as with other users or admins who have had periods of serious disturbance, I would ask the Arbitration Committee to consider removing Mitchazenia's bit, for a sizeable period of time, not in disgrace but to help prevent harm, perhaps help him, and help the project.

Posted as a request due to apparent simplicity, please move to full case if needed.

FT2 (Talk | email) 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: An emergency desysop is just that - handling of the emergency. Once the situation's stable, a more considered discussion is more appropriate. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Update 2: Be aware there is discussion of a friendly nature on his talk page, related to future conduct and so on. review there is probably useful, since the user (to avoid stress) has said they might not be active here. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mitchazenia

Since i get to edit now, I'll echo what I said on my talk. I was a dummy when I pulled that stunt, and now well, I regret it. I do not want my adminship back. I didn't get much support in the first place, and I really haven't deserved it for a while. Again, I am sorry. Don't go to any work on giving it back. Thanks.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Fast forward 24 hours. I am feeling much better after what happened. I don't agree with the ArbCom member that said its shouldn't be a black mark. In most of the community, people who have 1 big black mark are bound to fail an RFA, and being me, I doubt i'll ever get it back, even if I tried.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Juliancolton

Mitchazenia has been emergency desysopped, so isn't this more-or-less a moot point? –Juliancolton | Talk 15:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mitch requested that this comment be cross-posted here from his talk page:
I don't want want to leave a comment at this point. :| - It could have bad effects, and its not worth seeing it.Mitchazenia :  Chat  Trained for the pen 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
–Juliancolton | Talk 15:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with Gwen Gale. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Majorly

Perhaps FT2 missed that Mitch was emergency desysopped by Spacebirdy? Still, it would probably be helpful if ArbCom made it official, rather than just a steward's decision as a precaution.


Comment on motion: there are too many options here. Either allow him to ask the committee, or have an RFA. Allowing a bureaucrat to decide is inappropriate, as he undoubtedly was desysopped in "controversial" circumstances. Majorly talk 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by NonvocalScream

I asked a steward to remove the bit "emergency desysop" as a precaution. This has already been carried out. I don't understand the need for this. Actually, Majorly does make sense to me. It may be a good idea for this to be taken to the project level (made official) rather than leaving it as is (steward action). NonvocalScream (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Log

<StewardBot> Spacebirdy changed user rights for Mitchazenia@enwiki from sysop to (none) with the following comment: emergency desysop, see user contributions

<Thogo> right.

<Thogo> thanks, scream

<scream> thank you

End Paste

I'll note in FT2's above statement where he stated "a number of admins concurred". I want it on record that a non admin also concurred. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Re to CharlotteWebb Do note that at the hint of contacting the authorities, M quickly retracted his suicide threat. The entire thing was disruptive and the behavior was unpredictable. This is why the emergency desysop occurred, to mitigate danger to the project. And shame on who? Don't attack people. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


Re #2 to CW I did not have to establish he was a danger to the project. He did that all by himself. I rest in the fact that people here, and the stewards all agree this was the correct way. There is a consensus. NonvocalScream (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum I'll support NYB, that discussion today on wiki may be too soon. I further support M regaining his bit via a request to RFA, ARBCOM, or a crat. The removal did not result from any abuse of the tool. The "emergency" necessitating the removal no longer exists. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by IMatthew

After speaking with Mitch on IRC, he's let me know that he doesn't plan on committing suicide. I was told that he always threatens, but never goes through. Just letting you know that the threat shouldn't be a major alarm.  iMatthew :  Chat  15:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gwen Gale

I would support bringing this editor back into the fold after a healthy break and strong hints of a more settled outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think arbcom needs to worry about this. As it winds down, if a very few admins who know Mitchazenia think it's ok for him to have the bit (and he wants it back), I'd say asking a bureaucrat to handle it should be enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by CharlotteWebb

What was is the emergency here, other than that Mitch might hurt himself in real life? And if he was serious about this, how would/did desysopping do anything other than exacerbate the situation? If somebody reports to work and hints at killing their self would you fire them to further their depression? Shame on all of you. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You've failed to establish that he posed any "danger to the project". This whole exercise had no possible effect other than to aggravate someone who might have actually posed a danger to himself (and still might for all we know—unless you're qualified to tell the difference between "I changed my mind", "I was joking to begin with", and "I told you what you wanted to hear so you bastards will leave me alone"). — CharlotteWebb 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mitchazenia publicly for his 161 good articles, 9 featured articles, 4 featured topics, 1 good topic, 3 featured lists, 1 featured sound, and 32 DYKs. Mitch, you have many friends at this project who are proud of you, of your work, and are glad to help you--in the limited ways that we can--through this difficult time. Take care of yourself, and please accept my sincerest regards. DurovaCharge! 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

I would encourage the Arbitration Committee to contact me if they have any questions about my involvement in the matter. I would also encourage Mitchazenia to contact me as well. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Korn

I would agree with Majorly: the motion as currently worded offers too many options. Either Mitchazenia was desysopped in contraversial circumstances (so an RFA or aproval from the Committee is necessary) or he was not (so asking a bureaucrat is all that is necessary). Offering both as options is confusing. Does the Committee consider this a desysopping "under a cloud" (to use that awful phrase) or not? [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 13:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • At this point, I'm inclined to consider the incident closed with Mitchazenia having voluntarily given up his adminship because of stress. The emergency desysop was proper given the circumstances (and I thank the stewards for the swift response), but should not be viewed as a black mark against Mitchazenia. — Coren (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Due to Mitchazenia's statement, this no longer needs arbitration, and now would not be a good time to attempt it anyway. Mitchazenia can request adminship in the normal fashion, or request that the committee takes a look at this when they feel ready. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems moot now. Could those who know Mitchazenia, or are in contact, keep communication channels open if needed. Could those who don't know Mitchazenia please give them space here to avoid any ongoing stress from this incident. Carcharoth (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Concur with Brad and Charlotte. Do not think discussion now is appropriate (and the emergency action was not necessary, but going into that discussion now will only prolong drama). The immediate issue is moot. Mitchazenia needs to be given space now, and we should stop discussing this. Any loose ends can be tied up later in a few days time, though I will say that the option of an RFA seems remarkably poorly judged given the circumstances. Wouldn't that just lead to drama? Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Concur with Vassyana and Sam. No specific action needed at this time. No motions needed. All that is needed is to thank Mitchazenia for his work and wish him a speedy return to good health. Everything else can be dealt with later as and when needed. Sometimes taking a decision now for the future is not a good idea. We don't know what the circumstances will be in the future, so the decision on any potential request for readminship should be deferred, with the current status being that Mitchazenia was desysopped by a steward, and has accepted that. Nothing more needs to be done here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Bit removal is a moot point now. But we should settle the issue of bit restoration. See motions below. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that under the circumstances, having all of this discussion on-wiki today was or is the best manner of proceeding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Considering the current circumstances, I do not think we need to take any specific action at this time. The sysop bit was removed (under controversial circumstances) and Mitch has indicated that he is not seeking its restoration. I would like to echo Durova's gratitude for his hard work on the project. If he chooses to seek adminship at a later date, I would invite him to contact the Arbitration Committee before doing so. --Vassyana (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Concur with Vassyana. I thank Mitchazenia for his work and wish him a speedy return to good health. I do not think we need act on the motions below. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mitchazenia adminship restoration

1. Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) may regain his adminship via RFA, request to the arbitration committee, or request to a bureaucrat.

Support:
  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  3.  Roger Davies talk 20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. Wizardman 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  5. This is the default, but it cant hurt to make it clear. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  6. The obvious for the sake of formality. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  7. — Coren (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Fayssal. --bainer (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  9. Cool Hand Luke 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Kirill [pf] 02:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

1.1. Should Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) wish to regain adminship, he should consult with the Arbitration Committee, who shall advise him on the method for doing so.

Support:
  1. Kirill [pf] 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. This isn't an arbcom issue, no arb issue is involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. No need to weigh us down with more work when the community can handle it. Wizardman 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. per Rlevse Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  4. This is not the advice committee. We'll take the case if needed in the future, but we shouldn't need act at this point. Cool Hand Luke 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: EddieSegoura ban appeal attempts (April 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


Statement by TML

EddieSegoura (talk · contribs) was banned back in 2006 (the discussion that led up to the ban can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive104#Exicornt Vandalism/EddieSegoura. Since then, he has expressed a desire to appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, but I noticed that he has made his appeals on-Wiki rather than off-Wiki. His current appeal attempt, made about two months ago, is on the current version of his userpage. Here are some of his past appeal attempts: [28] [29]

About two years ago I sent him an e-mail advising him to appeal off-Wiki rather than on-Wiki (I can forward this e-mail and his response to the committee upon request), but it appears that he still desires to make his appeals on-Wiki.

I have no direct opinion on his ban, but I do have a few questions:

  • Is the committee aware of his request(s) to appeal his ban?
  • Has he ever e-mailed the committee to appeal?
  • If his appeals have been rejected, has the committee ever informed him about the rejection(s)?

I have no relation to this user, nor was I ever involved in his banning, but I've noticed that he seems to have a genuine desire to appeal his ban, but his methodology appears to be flawed. If he truly desires to appeal, I would like to help him do it properly. TML (talk) 07:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Eddie has sent a reply to the e-mail I sent him several days ago regarding this inquiry. Should I post it here, or should I forward it by e-mail? TML (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

In case anyone is not aware, Eddie Segoura made efforts over an extended period to publicise a protologism he had coined, "exicornt". He did this on enWP, Wiktionary, and by his own admission he added it to hundreds of pages on various Wikimedia sites. It was added to the meta:Spam_blacklist in 2007, and meta:Meta:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2006 suggests that the problem was pressing enough to raise the granting of emergency granting of CheckUser rights on Wiktionary. One account he now admits was a sockpuppet is Voltron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The unblock requests at User talk:Voltron appear to deny this, though Segoura now admits it openly. The user was banned for completely exhausting the community's patience, including by sockpuppetry, Wikistalking and baiting. I suggest that we should ask user:Jon Harald Søby about this as he appears to have dealt with much of the disruption this exceptionally persistent vandal caused.

  • More recent vandalism referencing exicornt:

Google Exicornt for more. If the current exicornt references are a joe-job (not unlikely) then we still have a massively disruptive history.

I have unprotected user talk:EddieSegoura to facilitate a request for unblock. This was, I believe, a community ban, so any appeal should probably be handled in the first instance by the community. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

If we were to unblock the user who is appealing, as suggested by Roger Davies, that would disrespect the community's view; the community spent the time to have them banned in the first place so that the user could not be unblocked without a community consensus to that effect. I agree that they should be allowed to participate in an appeal discussion, however, all that is needed is for them to be willing and able to use their talk page. Discussions can then be transcluded from/to the noticeboard - wherever the community is considering the appeal. But unblocking just to participate in the ban appeal is something that there is strong disagreement with, not just by myself either. I agree with much of the remainder of his comments though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Per the comments below, this will be sent over to WP:AN sometime later tonight or tomorrow. Not using ANI so as to keep the drama levels down as much as possible. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment - Someone that was presumably EddieSegoura (though after this length of time, some independent confirmation is needed) e-mailed ArbCom on 2nd February 2009. He provided the text of an appeal to be publicly posted. He then (editing through an IP address) posted that appeal to his user page here on 3rd February 2009 (the talk page was protected back in 2006). He was told on 7 February that ban appeals are conducted over email rather than by opening a case. On 16 February, another user added themselves to the "case" and made suggestions for terms of return. However, ArbCom would need to have more background information than this. The links provided by TML are useful (and I wish every user appealing a ban had someone that could provide the background in this way - in my view, either the user, or the blocking admin, or someone else willing to dig out the history, should provide the full background to each appeal). From a brief look over the older discussions, I would say that any ban appeal will have a lot of resistance to overcome, but this sort of appeal of very old bans is one of the things ArbCom should be looking at, in my opinion (unless there are editors in the community with the time to review the appeals carefully and properly). I suggest this is continued by e-mail to the arbitration committee mailing list, and the ban appeals subcommittee will look at this. If the appeal is declined, we will explain why and advise on where to go from there (including limits to prevent excessive appealing). If things are taken further, the community will be asked to comment on the terms of any proposals (as is required when looking at community bans). If there is strong resistance from the community for any return under any conditions, there will not be much ArbCom can do. Could the clerks and anyone else reading this please notify those who were involved in earlier discussions on this issue, including the blocking and user talk page protecting admins, and the user who posted to the "case" at User:EddieSegoura's page? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Guy. Those links are also very helpful. If you do handle any community discussion of any unblock request, could you make sure it is allowed to run for a reasonable length of time and not closed early? Also, during such a discussion, clear and polite explanations would be better than disparaging remarks, flat acceptance, or flat denials without explanations. One other thing: given that the original incidents and discussions were back in 2006, could some thought be given as to who should be notified about this? Some users are still here, some are no longer here, some are only semi-active. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If he wants a community ban review, this request can be taken to AN or ANI. If he wants the committee to review the ban, this request can be continued via email. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am just noting my agreement with the above. I have nothing further to add. --Vassyana (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to see appeals of this nature handled by the community, with the editor temporarily unblocked for full participation, and the discussion held open for a reasonable time (say, three or four days minimum). Providing enough eyes get on these appeals, the community is usually very good at handling them. Appeals to ArbCom should only really be made if there was a serious procedural flaw in the community process or significant new evidence comes to light. In both these instances, wherever possible, ArbCom should still pass the appeal back to the community for another look, perhaps with recommendations about how it might proceed.  Roger Davies talk 07:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for clarification: Motion on Macedonia 2 (April 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Avg

Since the relevant page has not been initiated yet, I put my request here and I kindly ask the clerks to move or refactor if necessary. I would like to ask the Committee if the injunction on renaming articles can be expanded in avoiding renaming how the Republic of Macedonia is referred within an article. Please advise if I have to notify any/all parties involved about this request.

Comment to Statement by ChrisO: The proposed motion clearly mandates to revert any rename, so that would obviously include vandalism, in order to return to the status quo ante. Not only it doesn't prevent, but it encourages reverting any user who unilaterally modifies the name, in order to restore the article's current status, pending resolution of the issue in ArbCom. Its purpose is the exact opposite of what you are advocating.

Statement by Man with one red show

This is a good idea, please extend the injunction. Hope this will also make clear that this issue (which was actually the initial issue) will be examined too and will not be let without a clear resolution. man with one red shoe 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Question by jd2718

Please clarify: "within an article" or "within the article"? The latter is quite clear, but if the former, could this extension be limited to parties to this arbitration? Jd2718 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I'm open to such a moratorium, but I ask that if it is enacted, it should be with a clear rule that violations can be reverted. That's because the situation is asymmetrical: most moves to rename, say, an instance of "f.Y.R." to "R.o.M., or an instance of "R.o.M." to plain "M.", have been coming from established users in good standing, who would feel bound by such a rule, whereas renames in the other direction, especially to "FYROM" and variants, come from a shadowy army of hit-and-run single purpose accounts, socks and IPs, who can easily risk a warning or a block. If we couldn't revert those, the wiki-wide situation would be shifted in a matter of few weeks; see the activity registered daily at the abuse log. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to the discussion ongoing above, especially Carcharoth: I don't think enforcement is a problem in the sense that you risk having participants blocked by involved admins. Come on, we involved admins may be wiki-suicidal, but we're not that wiki-suicidal. But yes, enforcement is an issue, and I repeat my plea above, when it comes to regulating how reverts to the status quo ante are to be done. If I read Rlevse's motion literally, it would seem that such reverts could be done only by uninvolved admins? That would introduce a huge bureaucratic overhead. Are we going to have to run to ANI for every little piece of everyday semi-vandalism to be cleaned up? Plus, there would also be the issue of where to draw the line between "normal" POV-pushing and true vandalism. For instance, just today I had to revert this: [30]. Now, say what you will, this one I do consider vandalism in the full sense, and there is simply no way on earth I'd accept an injunction that would prevent me from cleaning up this kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Taivo

I agree that a moratorium is good in principle, but completely concur with Future Perfect's assessment that the problems are often one-sided and waged by sock puppets, anonymous IPs, and other hit and run types. As an example, two different anonymous IPs removed a Macedonian alumnus from Staffordshire University within the course of 48 hours. While Staffordshire University would, conceivably, not be included in "Macedonian-related topics", it is indicative of what happens to anything labelled "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia" without provocation, without justification, and without any type of control. We must be able to revert these types of nationalistically motivated hit and run anonymous attacks. (Taivo (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Statement by ChrisO

I concur with the above, but I'd like to ask the arbs for a further clarification - does this motion still permit reversion of the anonymous hit-and-run vandalism that is occurring daily, renaming "Republic of Macedonia" as "FYROM" and its inhabitants as "FYROMians"? If not, a lot of our articles are going to deteroriate badly. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(add) This diff is a perfect example of what I am referring to - Greek editors repeatedly deleting any reference of the term "Macedonia" for POV reasons and using the unexpanded acronym FYROM in its place. Note the edit summary. Please also see User talk:Rlevse#Persistent vandalism and disruption for an overview of the problem, which is widespread and fairly intensively ongoing. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Should this be left as a stand alone request for clarification, or merged somewhere into the main RFAR above? KnightLago (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave it here, and move and start a new motion, in effect a sub motion to the first one. Arbs please continue this discussion/voting above. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to take a look at : The Alastair Haines situation (April 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Statement by Privatemusings

per this email and this note, I gather arbcom have received some information ahead of this request - but every little helps, right :-)

An OTRS ticket ( #2009040310049955 ) has somewhat divided the OTRS agents, with confusion as to whether or not it constitutes a legal threat. Regardless, because it comes from a publisher of this user's work, a decision has been made to ban the user indefinitely. A simple examination of the ticket by the arbcom would be helpful. You might also like to review this diff noting that it was posted subsequent to the OTRS request, and clearly by the protaganist!

Please review this asap and consider further steps to improve systemic performance in this area - overall it's just been totally unacceptable in my view.

@risker and MB - for what it's worth, the outcome of a good conversation on IRC in the OTRS channel was that the OTRS folk are divided, and unlikely to take any action (it was important to note that this was not an impasse, but it's hard for me to explain why not!) - the simple fact is that two users have been indefinitely blocked over this - one clearly in error, which, despite being fixed after 5 days is still a ginormous stuff up. At the very least, I'd hope the committee might lean towards taking some responsibility towards resolving this situation speedily and smoothly, it would speak well of us, no? Privatemusings (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Outstanding Issues

to be explicit, I am swallowing a degree of distaste for this process in asking the committee to attend to the following gigantic boobs outstanding issues;

  • A good faith user was blocked for 5 days based on an administrator's hunch that they might have sent an email. They hadn't, and I would like to committee to strongly underline how inappropriate this bungle was. It's the sort of thing that can cause unnecessary drama, I reckon.
  • Alaistair Haines has been indefenitely blocked, with the stated rationale that someone else sent OTRS an email. I'd like arbcom to examine this interesting reading of site policy.
  • A couple of days after someone else sent OTRS an email, Alaistair posted this diff explaining his current position in regard to legal action. Only a gigantic boob could have missed this - it's linked some 5 or 6 lines up :-)
  • The Pièce de résistance - as a response to another somebody (me) asking a few questions, some people note that maybe it's a good idea to open up Alaistair's talk page, and some people think 'hey, the exact opposite might be just the ticket' - right now the talk page is protected from all editing. Way to go wiki dispute resolution!

Finally, I have to pass a wry comment on Brad's note - it's interesting that the vagaries of this project lead such a wise chap to state that editing under your own name is not a good idea. It took me maybe 30 min.s yesterday to sift through and realise the scale of the boobage in this situation - please try to attend to it, dear arbs :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)hopefully the section title will have captured at least someone's attention.....

more hmmmmm..... I headed over to Coren's talk page to ask for his rationale for a block, and wondering if he could outline the best next-steps for an unblock, where he mentioned "The matter is currently in discussion within the Committee." - is it? Perhaps I'm wrong to read into that the intimation that arbcom are currently discussing this, but I'm not sure how not to! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
any news? My reading of the below is that the arbcom doesn't consider this an arbcom matter, which is in tension with Coren mentioning that arbcom are indeed discussing it. Are you discussing this?
It's my opinion that there's a systemic problem in how you (arbcom) choose to communicate around requests such as these, right now I (as initiator) have no way of knowing if anyone is actually attending to any of these issues. Meanwhile, while thumb twiddling, head scratching and general procrastination and avoidance continue, a good faith user remains indefinitely blocked. This shouldn't be acceptable to any of you.
If anyone flicks me an email letting me know when we can expect an update (ideally with some explanation as to why) I'll be patient, otherwise cage rattling is the only avenue available, I guess :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
well no email (yet), and no surprise there, I guess :-) - as I noted on the administrator's noticeboard thread, several reviewing admin.s are of the opinion that this is now an office and arbcom matter, and are unwilling to take any action. My reading of the arbcom's comments below is that you're not minded to take any action either, which is odd considering Coren mentioned that you were discussing it. Coren, as the blocking admin. is now completely unresponsive, although the good news is he's amused by the situation. Coren notes in her edit summary that 'this does not need to proceed further' - oh good, so it's all sorted out then?
what I have noticed is that it's easier to get a conversation going about a shaven vagina round here than it is to resolve the indefinite blocking of a long standing valuable editor. Come to think of it, that sounds like this wiki :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The only potential concern I can see here is that Mr Haines apparently can't edit his own talk page, I am always wary of impeding attempts by living individuals to correct inaccuracies about themselves. Mr Haines has contacted OTRS through his representatives, but if we believe that there is a pressing problem with his communications being impeded then there is no reason not to ask Coren to change the block parameters.

A quick look through the history suggests the following interpretation of events: Alastair Haines has a series of blocks for legal threats, and has been warned many times about them. When another comment was made which he considered defamatory, rather than make another legal threat and get blocked, he appears to have asked a colleague to make the threat on his behalf. The colleague was perhaps more moderate than Mr. Haines himself, and in any case the request was a reasonable one and handled to to correspondent's apparent satisfaction. It seems to em that the concern here is that rather than exploring ways of not making legal threats, Mr Haines has decided to explore other ways of making legal threats without consequences. That is plainly unacceptable. That is how I read it from the current comments, anyway; we'd have to ask Coren for his take I think.

The supposed controversy or debate is not evident to me as an OTRS agent and subscriber to otrs-en-l, and I don't see any suggestion that Coren has gone WP:ROUGE on this. It looks like a standard response to legal threats, and it also looks as if all parties are already mindful of the WP:BLP implications. What prior attempts have been made to resolve this dispute? Has it been raised at the admin noticeboards? Has anyone asked Coren about the specific issue of talk page locking?

In any case, I can't see what ArbCom is intended to do here, this seems like the first step in a dispute resolution process, not the last. Attempts to resolve the dispute by argumentation on WR are not, as yet, a part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process are they? That seems to have been the major venue for this debate thus far, by my reading of the comments.

I would also note that the ticket referenced above has been closed as successful, with a comment from the individual who raised the ticket complimenting Wikipedia on our enforcement of policies. Is there any evidence of a continuing issue requiring resolution, other than a user who is blocked and doesn't like it? I'm not seeing anything here which makes this an "OTRS needs ArbComming" type case. There are three tickets relating to Haines, being 2009040310049955, 2007062910002018 and 2007062810015248; all are "closed successful", none are long threads, none show evidence of outstanding issues. On what basis is it claimed that this block is a response to OTRS? Unless I have grabbed the wrong end of the wrong stick, this does not seem to me to have anything to do with OTRS, it looks like a standard case of an on-wiki argument which has generated a single email complaint which was swiftly resolved by removing some talk page text. I think invoking OTRS is a red herring, we should focus on the user himself and his history of inappropriate legal posturing. I think that's what Coren has done. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Addendum: Having worked this out from first principles, as it were, I think the best course is to protect AH's talk page as being the locus of the disputed content, and to ensure that he is given the information necessary to request any courtesy blanking that may be necessary. I will do this and post at the admin noticeboards. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Coren

Guy has, in fact, nailed the matter with no small amount of precision. While the OTRS ticket itself is closed and has been resolved, the block to AH's account is a matter of continuing pattern of legal and pseudo legal bullying being continued through an agent or proxy. If someone in a clear (and admitted) business relationship with an editor who has repeatedly been blocked for legal threats picks up the same language (and, indeed, much of the same wording) as the previous threats immediately after the editor has been obligated to withdraw them, those threats can rightly be considered as made by proxy.

(There was also another editor blocked by myself, SkyWriter, which has since been unblocked. I had apparently misidentified them as AH's publisher.)

As for the block parameters (that is, excluding editing the talk page), I've simply implemented the specific conditions made by the originally unblocking admin, Theresa knott. I do not feel strongly about it either way, but I do believe that the matter is now best handled entirely off-wiki (either with the Office, or with ArbCom — as a ban appeal, not as anything to do with OTRS). — Coren (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On timing: I realize the email arrived before AH was unblocked; I was referring to it arriving after Alastair had been blocked for making essentially the same claims. — Coren (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

The OTRS ticket was received on April 3rd. User:Alastair Haines made his second unblock request on April 8th. User:Theresa knott left time on WP:ANI for any objections to her proposed unblock on April 8th, posting the strict conditions on Alastair Haines' talk page when she unblocked. Coren blocked Alastair Haines and User:Skywriter on April 9th because of the prior OTRS ticket. There seem to have been various crossed wires here, probably because of different time zones (Europe, Australia, USA). Mathsci (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil

I'm not going to add much more since I think everything has already been said. And basically I agree with Guy, Coren and Mathsci. Also as John says below I have asked Alastair to give me a list of diffs - I'm yet to recieve any and am about to ask again.

I have gathered, without being able to see the OTRS ticket, that the publisher was concerned about content on Alastair's talk page but I know that Alastair has issue with other comments elsewhere. Comments including the ArbCom proposal to ban him (a proposal that was rejected). I believe he has sent an email to the Committee - if he has not speciified what diffs / comments are problematic in that message I can ask him to do so. If he does send them - I will pass them on to John and/or the Committee (as long as Alastair doesn't have a problem with that). But that said we can only really judge if it breaks our rules (WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK) not if it is defamatory in a legal sense--Cailil talk 16:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I have not been able to locate the specific proposal (from the previous RfAr) that Alastair objects too - so he will need to spell out which one he has issue with. I think allowing him to post to his talk page might help progress matters--Cailil talk 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a note of Clarification. I page banned User:LisaLiel from User talk:Alastair Haines - I didn't block anyone. Also I don't know if Lisa's or specifically any other user's comments were the issue. Lisa was page-banned per the RfAr for being disruptive and pointy - nothing else--Cailil talk 19:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tiptoety

To Risker: While I agree that this is not the correct method, WP:OTRS does state that any actions by an OTRS volunteer on-wiki are reviewable by the Arbitration committee. Please see [31]. Tiptoety talk 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Casliber

I feel the 1 week block from JHunterJ which was the initial flashpoint for this dustup was incorrect (however I note my involved status) - mainly as it put a content builder with a genuine interest in the article in question, and a content remover who has been guilty of stalking another user, on the same level. Things have spiralled out of control since then, with other issues being drawn in. This breakdown in communication has become a massive timesink and I can see further confrontation on arb pages as no different. I do think some negotiation is possible in order to defuse the situation, calm it down and return an equilibrium of sorts. I apologise I have had limited time with this but believe we can sort it out by email. Open discussion has drawn a peanut gallery so far which has not been helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Had I thought of it earlier, a Request for Clarification on the 1 week block might have resulted in an earlier resolution. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ottava Rima

I was, as far as I know, the first to notice the User:SkyWriter block. I contacted Coren and discussed the matter with a few others. I was glad that others stepped forward and that the matter was handled calmly until Coren's return. I am not a friend of Coren's. Most people will know that Coren and I do not get along. However, Coren proceeding in a fair manner and reacted quickly after he returned.

I am not a fan of NLT related blocks, nor am I a fan of people having their block logged marked up over the matter, let alone from being removed from contributing to the Wiki over it. I believe that these matters can prevented in the future if there is a clear statement about taking something to court and there is a clearly identified person. NLT is to prevent matters from being taken onto Wiki or disrupting the Wiki. Legal matters require individuals, and cannot happen behind pseudonyms in such a way. So, there should be a higher burden of actual legal matters to warrant an indef ban. As for the "threat" part, in casual conversation, they should be taken as a breach of civility in general, as they can be, in their title, threatening and are rude in general. There should be a difference between actual legal matters (indef block until they are resolved) and threats (in extreme cases warranting a block related to civil like disruptions but not an indef block). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SkyWriter

Here is what I understand from information given in discussions:

  • On April 3 someone opened an OTRS requesting that an administrator follow Wikipedia guidelines and remove personal attacks against Alastair Haines.
  • The OTRS administrator Daniel refused on the grounds that they represented [encyclopedic] content.
  • On April 8 Calil page-banned one editor from Alastair's talkpage for 6 months.
  • On April 8 Alastair Haines issued an extraordinarily comprehensive legal waiver that he would never take legal action – covering the past, present, and future.
  • The problem possibly solved by both Calil and Alastair -- Alastair was then unblocked.

NO INTERVENING STATEMENTS FROM ALASTAIR OCURRED

  • On April 9 Coren blocked Alastair for the April 3 OTRS, wiping out the entire talk page (including the personal attacks).
  • Sometime after this the OTRS emailer thanked Wikipedia for its prompt response and praised the site for following its own policies against personal attacks.
  • Both Daniel and Coren have failed to explain:
  1. What threat (i.e. an "or else" statement) was associated with the OTRS.
  2. How a "thank you" after blocking Alastair shows collusion with Alastair.
  3. How a "thank you" constitutes a legal threat.
  4. How a "thank you" prevents arbcom from lifting the Alastair block.
  5. How personal attacks on a talkpage constitute unremovable encyclopedic “content.”
  6. How Alastair’s extraordinary legal waiver constitutes ongoing legal posturing.

I therefore recommend that Alastair be unblocked, and that Coren and Daniel be required to read Wikipedia guidelines regarding personal attacks and unequivocally promise to enforce those guidelines before being allowed to work an OTRS or block a user.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The following was moved from the clerk notes section. KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Yes, please notify Cary Bass on his page at Meta, and he can determine which other OTRS volunteers should be informed. Risker (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Notified at m:User_talk:Bastique#en-wiki_RFAR. MBisanz talk 10:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a general note: Please don't edit other people's comments; bring issues to our attention. And Privatemusings, please reword the level five heading in your section. MBisanz talk 06:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
done - and for the record, whilst the adding of gigantic boobs, where appropriate, is most welcome, their removal may well be reverted. Take note, lurkers. Privatemusings (talk) 08:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Comment: OTRS is outside of the scope of the Arbitration Committee and is a creature of the Wikimedia Foundation. Any comment on this situation made by the Committee must obviously exclude any OTRS information, as several Committee members do not have OTRS authorization to see the ticket involved. Risker (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Response to Privatemusings and Tiptoety: The initial request, upon which my comment above was made, was for the Arbitration Committee to review an OTRS ticket and make a decision on what to do about it. That is outside of the scope of the Committee. Each OTRS volunteer is responsible for his or her own actions and, just as with any editorial or administrative behaviour issue, could be reviewed by this Committee. The arms-length relationship between OTRS and the Committee is one that protects the individual who submits information to OTRS; if the person who initiated correspondence with OTRS wishes to send a copy of their email to the Arbitration Committee then we will review it and respond where appropriate, but I do not believe the Committe should muscle its way in to this area without the direct request of the party involved. Risker (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. This seems to be a matter for Cary or a member of the OTRS team to handle, as would be true for most OTRS ticket related situations. What, exactly, is ArbCom being asked to review? (Are we being asked to make a determination about the legal threats, or lack thereof, in the ticket? Are we being asked to review the block? Are we being asked to review the substantive relation between the submitter and Alistair Haines?) Also, please understand that this matter involves an OTRS ticket and private correspondance, which may limit our ability to full explain or comment upon the situation on-wiki (and impede full access to all of the evidence available). --Vassyana (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This is being discussed among the arbitrators. However, this situation does involve confidential and identifying information, which may not be appropriate to discuss on-wiki due to its nature. --Vassyana (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment In no way is this issue ripe for consideration by ArbCom in this form. I have no reason to think that OTRS agents would not be able to work through the issue as it relates to them. Sensible people disagreeing with each other (if that is the case) is a strength of the system not a concern. IMO, no action needed at this time. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Recuse; I have acted in the matter of the OTRS ticket as an administrator and an OTRS agent. — Coren (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Recuse; I was involved in the last arbitration case and initiated the clarification request. One of the unresolved problems has been that Alastair Haines finds a few comments left around the project to be inappropriate. If he is unblocked, but these objectionable comments are not identified and discussed, I fear we will be back here again soon enough. In case it is still outstanding, Cailil says he is waiting to be advised of a list of problems so that the community members can assess and possibly fix them. He could also send them to arbcom if he prefers, or he could send them to me. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: A substantial amount of the problem here involves the fact that Alastair Haines, an editor who has gotten into more than his share of editing disputes, edits Wikipedia under his full name. (Not merely that he discloses his real-life identity, but that his username is actually his name.) This automatically and overtly transforms any dispute involving A.H. the Wikipedia editor into an accusation against A.H. the individual, a fact that has consistently been unhelpful. I repeat the recommendation that has been made in the past that however this particular block is resolved, he consider requesting a rename. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentA mere rename will help but not solve the issues here. I have to pretty much agree with Flo, Coren,and Guy, this is not ready for arbcom and I would be uncomfortable unblocking AH this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Recuse as a non-impartial friend of Alastair. I will add a comment above later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - nothing substantive to add, except to say that a full and frank discussion of the grey areas of the 'no legal threats' policy is long overdue, including what to do about legal posturing, and those who are litigious by nature, but still want to edit Wikipedia. At some point, repeated arguments over legal threats and possibilities of legal threats, distracts too much from what we are meant to be doing here - working together to write an encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, agree with Carcharoth. Wizardman 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with JzG that the OTRS aspect here appears to be a red herring. 'No legal threats' is an absolute principle and one with a very clear boundary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per my colleagues; OTRS is within not our bailiwick; however, NLT is and probably could use reviewing.  Roger Davies talk 07:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to amend prior case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman (May 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request by Shoemaker's Holiday

I have just discovered that some site called Wikisynergy has, despite the previous withdrawal of the case, been using it to create an attack page on me. [32]

I think it's time we end this farce: The Arbcom has already agreed that all negative findings against me are withdrawn. I hereby ask the arbcom to declare the case completely invalid, and to comment on the unfairness of the way the case was undertaken such as letting a sitting member of Arbcom constantly attack and belittle me and other editors, unsamctioned.

I hate to bring this up again, but as you can see by the link, it has become necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


To MBisanz:

I think that we need to remove both. I do not really feel like being an admin again, but I think that we should clarify the text, state tht the Arbcom case should not have been accepted in the first place, that it is completely withdrawn due to the major procedural errors, and so on.

The arbcom have accepted that the case was problematic. While the former Arbcom's actions were not being used to harass me, that was enough. However, it has now become an issue, and I must ask that the Arbcom make it clear: The procedural anomolies and the personal attacks by a sittingg member of arbcom throughout the case page meant that it was impossible for the case to have been fair, one user should not have been singled out for a test case over a single action, due to seeking discussion about it instead of immediately capitulating to a member of Arbcom; and the complete scan of every admin action that he had ever done, in order to find some evidence to use against him was a grand fishing expedition that would have found some evidence about any admin, but it was treated as if it were a random sampling for which more could have been provided, not a complete list.

Furthermore, the RfC was strongly against the removal of adminship, but after calling for the RfC, it was ignored. I believe that I'll just quote from User_talk:UninvitedCompany/archive22#Matthew_Hoffman_case. It's in response to UninvitedCompany's claim about the RfC "My sense was that it wasn't broad based and didn't include substantive participation from people outside the group of SPOV proponents who take a hard line on topics such as Homeopathy. We received some private comments from users who supported some sort of sanctions regarding Vanished user but did not wish to so state publicly."


I still consider the entire case nothing more than official harassment (If nothing else, the committee allowed a sitting member of Arbcom to attack and belittle multiple editors, and when this was complained about, as seen above, they defended his right to do so.) I was willing to agree to a face-saving compromise before, but now that it's being used to attack me, I feel that I must ask you to revisit, and make a stronger statement.

I don't want to say too much about the case: it would simply serve to drag the Arbcom's dirty laundry further into the public eye. I hope that what I've said is sufficient for the Arbcom to investigate this themselves. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To Kirril: I'm worried that having it as an Arbcom requirement will open me to more problems of this sort. I'm happy to make a personal agreement, however, or something like that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


To Newyorkbrad: I fee l the Arbcom can so soemthing: They can declare that the case should never have been accepted, and that it is completely withdrawn. Matthew Hoffman had already been unblocked - by me - before the case was opened. It's not as if the committee withdrew any restriction from him - that had already been done - it just served to harass the acting admin who had somewhat misread a situation.
Matthew Hoffman is a red herring, this case was about Charles Matthews not getting his way immediately, being upset that I sought opinions other than his because I didn't have time to review the case.
He says as much:
If the situation was so unimportant that had I given into him immediately and secretly, instead of seeking more input, there would have been no case, but because I did seek more input, there was one, then it's clear the case was only launched because Charles didn't get exactly what he wanted out of an admin he wanted to lord over immediately. Every attack and statement of Charles is all about his bruised ego lashing out, and the Arbcom of the time thought this was A-OK. He's apologised for this, and I don't think we need to look further into his actions, unless there's evidence that similar behaviour is continuing. However, I'm sure you must admit the case was highly irregular and discreditable. The Arbcom should admit this, and withdraw it fully, replacing it with a statement fully pointing out the problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


--Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad: The arbcom has it fully and completely in their power to say the case was entirely invalid, and should not have been accepted, and that the handling of it made it impossible for any justice to have occurred. That is what I ask you to do. You can do something: That. Please do. The Arbcom put a weapon in the hands of my enemies with their horrendously unethical actions in that case. I want the Arbcom to make a complete, and unambiguous statement declaring that they do not uphold anything about that case at all, and will take this to the community if the Arbcom continues to attempt to defend the indefensible. [User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


To the Arbcom: Is this all you intend to say on the subject? If so, will you please work with me to help me craft an acceptable appeal to the community? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To Rootology: The Arbcom have never apologised or admitted wrongdoing in the case. I believe they have it fully in their power to do this. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

The Matthew Hoffman case needlessly destroyed the reputation of an imperfect but dedicated and able administrator. It also did significant damage to the reputation of the Arbitration Committee, a situation that became worse over the course of 2008. The withdrawal of adverse findings against Shoemaker's Holiday was a necessary and welcome step forward by the Committee in righting previous wrongs. I strongly urge the Committee members to take the next step and formally recognise the mistakes that were made. This could both address the damage done to Shoemaker's Holiday's reputation and signal unambiguously the Committee's intention to ensure similar mistakes do not happen in the future.

Some of the issues which I believe should be recognised and addressed:

  • Allowing a member of the Committee to essentially slander the subject of a case is bad enough, but when other members refuse to even consider the appropriateness of the behaviour sends an appalling signal.
  • If a member of the Committee is recused s/he should not be participating in any way off-wiki... in this case, the recused member not only remained on the ArbCom email list but was also reading the evidence. Only the Committee members at the time know what else he may have said behind the scenes, but even if it was nothing the mere fact of his reading confidential case materials when he was a party to the case is bad enough.
  • The complete disregard of the RfC - it really looked like disdain for the views of the community.
  • The proposal of sanctions by a Committee member before almost any evidence was posted - and the same members disinclination towards accountability, in that he was unwilling to answer questions about his actions or the case.

I believe that the Committee would be wise to vote some principles / findings to be recorded on the case page. Some that might be considered:

  • If a member of the Committee is a party to a case (whether as initiator or not), s/he will recuse from decision making and participate solely through channels available to all other parties. The case clerk and the ArbCom list moderators will ensure that case-related materials are only distributed to the non-recused members of the Committee. Recused members are expected to comport themselves with the same decorum expected of other experienced Wikipedians.
  • Wikipedia has dispute resolution processes for good reasons, and cases where many or most of them have been bypassed will usually be declined as premature - as the Matthew Hoffman case should have been. If the Committee calls for community input (by way of RfC, for instance), the community views will generally carry substantial weight.
  • Committee members who are unable to act with impartiality are expected to recuse. Members of the Committee can and should call on another member to recuse if that member displays apparent bias (such as by voting on sanctions before evidence is presented, or declaring that community input that differs from the member's views should be ignored).
  • The Matthew Hoffman case should probably not have been accepted in the first place. The behaviour and actions of the recused arbitrator who brought the case reflected poorly on himself and the Committee. Coupled with other irregularities in the case, there can be no confidence in the reasonableness or accuracy of any findings. The Committee affirms that all findings in relation to Shoemaker's Holiday have been rescinded and he remains a Wikipedian in good standing.

I realise that these are strong statements. I came to be aware of this case fairly early in my time at Wikipedia. As a scientist, I feel I have a lot of knowledge that I can contribute, and yet the difficulties in getting sensible changes made are daunting. The findings of the Matthew Hoffman case were one of the reasons that I ultimately gave up on participating. I've only recently come back and am looking around to see whether the situation has changed. Please show me that the Committee can recognise the mistakes of the past and act to correct them. EdChem (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I was a party to this case. Let's not dig up this horse corpse to start beating it again. Jehochman Talk 13:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Question by MZMcBride

It's my understanding that most of the people who have examined this case agree that it was incredibly poorly handled. Has the Committee ever considered a motion or finding to that effect? That is, something that says that the case was mishandled or that certain Arbitrators acted inappropriately.

I realize that the Committee vacated part of the decision and I realize that digging up a seemingly buried horse is not always the best thing to do, however being explicit here that mistakes have been made and perhaps even apologizing for them publicly might do a world of good. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Chaser

Why doesn't the Committee just swallow its collective pride and offer an institutional apology for helping Charles Matthews fuck over Shoemaker's Holiday? This was an embarrassment to everyone involved, the Committee most of all. Hiding behind procedure and insisting the only thing you can do is cut away more from the original case is crap. Time to own up to it and issue a clear statement: "ArbCom fucked up and we're sincerely sorry for it."--chaser - t 06:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Sticky Parkin

To SH- the more you go on about this the more you are giving ammunition to hate sites, which thrive on people seeming upset, prolonging a "drama," or feeling they've been treated unfairly. Just admit to yourself that you made some mistakes, even if you consider them small, some parts of your behaviour detailed in the case were accurate, and even if you think the decision/case was disproportionate, just get on with your life. Swallow it, however bitter it is. If you can't, get outside assistance. I know you feel this caused you problems in your real life, but if this is the worst thing that happens to you in your life, you will have led a charmed life. You're just making yourself seem bad by continually bringing this up, in my humble opinion, and just creating further stuff people on hate sites can use against you. The best thing you can do is let it die, to avoid perpetuating the hate sites etc and to preserve your own reputation. Arbcom have already been good about blanking the case, they didn't have to as some details of it were accurate. Everyone who has been involved in an arbcom feels hard done by. Join the club :):) and just seek to avoid such things in future, for your own peace of mind. Trying to avoid such things, within reason of course, is a lesson you can learn from it and might help you get on with things. There are more important things in this world, go out and grasp it before you are old.:) Best wishes. Sticky Parkin 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved rootology

As someone that's been on about every side of everything on this site in his time, I just want to make the suggestion to SH that there really isn't anything the AC can do about this. Outside sites are outside sites, and not even the WMF can do anything about them without endangering their Section 230 protections--let alone the local AC here. I was persona non grata to a lot of people for a long time, and the exact opposite to a lot of others. A lot of people said that the AC of my first tour of duty screwed the pooch, and a lot of people said that they should have hung me even more firmly by the balls if they could have. When I came back, it was just the same. On the very "He's back!" thread on WP:AN, at least one person that said essentially, "What a waste, keep him gone," later worked with me. Ditto for my later RFA that passed.

Sound familiar? The problem is that, once something like this has gone on the 'record', it can't be undone. It's done, it's out there. Even if the AC voted unanimously, 17-0, to vacate the original MONGO case (which gave us pointless chestnuts like BADSITES) it won't change how people feel. It simply cannot. The AC has no power, except to say "You can't go here," or "You may go here," and that's it, in various flavors and forms. It can arbitrate who can do what where and when on this website, but it can't arbitrate how people feel or think. Any attempt to do would be a laughable failure. The AC cannot do that; Jimmy cannot do that, and the WMF cannot do that, and none of them ever will.

As unfortunate as it is, you have three choices, and three real options, and nothing else. The same ones I faced, and those others did and will, also.

  1. Abandon your username and personality. Make a new Gmail. Make a new name that has nothing to do with you and never has. If you have nothing to do with Monterey, California, call yourself User:MontereyBob. Never touch anything, anyone, or anyplace related to your previous names. Totally cut the cord, with a brutal knife, from whom and what you were. Start over. See you as an AC member in x years' time.
  2. Fight to win back your name. You'll have no support but your friends, and your own actions. You'll have to suck up in good spirits and with a sense of humor anything and everything thrown in your face. You'll have to accept that you may well have a glass ceiling. You may never pass the mark of editor. Or admin. Or AC clerk. Or Checkuser. Or Oversight. Or Arbcom. Or WMF. Or WMF Chair. How high or low? See you in x years' time. But: you're on your own. The AC can't do it for you or help you. Anything today's AC does can't put any genies back in any bottles.
  3. Quit. There's a glorious day outside of the Internet waiting for you. The sun is out. The birds are singing. There's a pretty guy or girl down the block--go get their digits. Go for a walk. Go watch a film. Go write a book. Go live life. Wikipedia is one piece of the world, and anything but the most important.

It's up to you; choose your own adventure. rootology (C)(T) 03:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

  • Note to Clerk: Since they've been mentioned or referred to, a Clerk probably needs to notify the editor who filed the Matthew Hoffman case as well as the former arbitrator who drafted the initial decision of this thread. I do not know that they will actually want to comment, but due notice applies to everyone. (I am considering other points raised.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Arbitrators

  • A few points:
  1. We have no control over external sites.
  2. The Committee has already allowed you to edit under a fresh account, and withdrawn the findings insofar as they reflect adversely on you. What else is it that you want?
  3. I for one will not support "declar[ing] the case completely invalid". There are other findings and remedies in the case that are still in effect, and for which there is no cause to withdraw, namely the findings that there is no evidence MatthewHoffman is a sockpuppet, and that the accusations that he engaged in harassment, POV pushing, extreme rudeness, and vandalism are not borne out by the evidence, and the remedy that his block log be amended to indicate that the blocks were not justified.
--bainer (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The other findings aren't relevant in any practical sense, I think, since Hoffman never returned from his block. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Recused. --Vassyana (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Stephen Bain's points, and I would particularly emphasize point #1. Risker (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • A question for Shoemaker's Holiday, since I don't quite understand the intent behind "remove both": are you repudiating our earlier agreement? Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • EdChem, there are Committee policy reforms happening over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Draft policy (and the talk page). John Vandenberg (chat) 14:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed the external page to which Shoemaker's Holiday links. Although Risker is of course correct that we have no control over what use is made of our decisions on external sites (compare the last principle in Mantanmoreland), I feel justified in commenting here on the page in question under these circumstances. I do not understand what specific purpose the page is intended to serve, and I would urge the people responsible for the external site in question to, at a minimum, substantially redact it. If the page is intended as criticism of a particular former Wikipedia administrator, I submit that it is needless, both because the individual in question is no longer an administrator and will not imminently be one, and because as noted above the arbitration findings reflecting upon him, which were determined to have resulted from a flawed process, have been withdrawn. Even were that not the case, the references there to this individual's real-world name (which he has not used on Wikipedia for more than a year) and some of his personal identifying details are completely gratuitous and in some respects appear to be almost intentionally hurtful. Under the circumstances, were I behind the external site in question, I would find maintaining this page in its current form to be a more negative reflection upon that site than upon Wikipedia or one of its contributors. All that being said, however, I cannot imagine that any action by this Committee to vacate or expunge the remaining findings in this 16-month-old case would materially affect either perceptions of the case or the actions of the external site in question. For these reasons and those mentioned by some of my colleagues, with regret, I do not think there is anything more we can do to ameliorate this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think NYB pretty much hit the nail on the head. There's not really anything more we can do. I don't like what I see on the site, and i'd like to see it redacted, but as stated above, it wouldn't work out. Wizardman 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_26&oldid=1142656284"