Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:32, 6 September 2007 view sourceDeskana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,062 edits Statement by Deskana← Previous edit Revision as of 18:33, 6 September 2007 view source Morven (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled18,655 edits →Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/1)Next edit →
Line 133: Line 133:
: (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.) : (This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)


==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/1) ==== ==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/1) ====
* Reject. Mostly a content dispute. Additionally the Committee does not make policy on Free content or fair use. ]] 11:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC) * Reject. Mostly a content dispute. Additionally the Committee does not make policy on Free content or fair use. ]] 11:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
* I'm not sure. Obviously this is a dispute about an article's content, but whether it is "content" qua the same manner that we intended when we said "we don't do content disputes", I'm not sure. The image use policy is what's really being considered. Either way, I don't think that Arbitration is really the best place for this. ] ] 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC) * I'm not sure. Obviously this is a dispute about an article's content, but whether it is "content" qua the same manner that we intended when we said "we don't do content disputes", I'm not sure. The image use policy is what's really being considered. Either way, I don't think that Arbitration is really the best place for this. ] ] 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
* Reject, for now. IMO, there seems to be a difference of opinion on how the non-free images policy should operate in cases that are not cut & dried either way. Can admins over-ride local consensus either on an article or other places based on their belief that local consensus cannot override the image policy as they interpret it? Either way, I think the parties & others should at least try harder to resolve their differences & beat the non-free image policy into a shape more people can agree on. ] (]:]) 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

---- ----


Revision as of 18:33, 6 September 2007

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Non-free media at Intelligent design

Initiated by Videmus Omnia at 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Diffs of notifications -

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Videmus Omnia

I apologize in advance for length, I will do my very best to condense an extremely complicated dispute involving very many people in as few words as possible.

The featured article Intelligent design, has, for some time, contained non-free images of three book covers and one Time magazine cover used to illustrate various points in the article. Most, if not all, were added by Kenosis since July 2007. On 19 August 07, the images were removed from the article by Abu badali on the grounds that they did not meet item #8 of the non-free content criteria. His action was twice reverted by the primary editors of the article , so he nominated the magazine cover (which was used in no other articles) for deletion and requested input on alleged improper usage of the non-free book covers at Misplaced Pages:Fair use review.

Upon seeing the report at WP:FUR, I, Videmus Omnia, also believed the use of the book covers was decorative and a violation of WP:NFCC#8. However, I felt deletion of the images would be inappropriate, as I believed their usage on the articles about the books themselves was allowable per the Foundation's licensing resolution, specifically the clause "to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works" (i.e. the copyrighted books themselves). Intelligent design is, in and of itself, not a copyrighted work, so I felt the usage of the non-free media there was a violation of policy. I therefore placed {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} on the 3 book cover images, requesting administrator review. My placement of the "disputed" tag was simply reverted by multiple editors without an admin having reviewed my concern , except in cases where it was removed, mere hours after I added it, by an admin who was involved in Intelligent design and not image use policy (FeloniousMonk) , who then proceeded to accuse me of a WP:POINT violation by disputing the rationales. .

Faced with repeated reversion of the "disputed" tags, I ultimately nominated two of the images at WP:IFD with the proviso that my request was for a ruling on the appropriateness of the images in the Intelligent design article. The debates were marred by attacks and incivility by defenders of the image's usage, which spread to the debates on unrelated images that were occurring simultaneously. A particularly egregious offender was Jim62sch - offensive nickname, "excuse me, your highness, who the hell are you?", etc. Much more evidence can be shown if the case is accepted, I'm trying to keep this statement short. Jim62sch's actions and incivil remarks led directly into an dispute with Quadell, in which Quadell's minor action of templating a regular was heavily criticized by User:KillerChihuahua but Jim62sch faced little or no criticism for his inappropriate behavior. The personal attacks on non-free image workers was in direct violation of this previous ArbCom ruling, but attacks and incivility towards people doing this work still seem to be accepted by the community.

Nv8200p, acting as closing administrator, closed the deletion discussions for the two book covers on 4 Sep 07 with the decision that rationales for usages of the images in locations other than the articles on the books themselves was invalid. This type of "split decision", in which the image was not deleted but certain usages were judged to be in violation of policy, has occurred at IfD before. Nv8200p proceeded to remove the images from noncompliant usages on various articles; his decision as closing admin was ignored by the primary editors on the articles involved, and his removal of the images reverted by muliple editors. His edits to the image pages themselves were also reverted. Other admins and editors (including myself, ElinorD, and Quadell) restored Nv8200p's versions at various points, all these actions were also reverted. At one point, Nv8200p protected the page Phillip E. Johnson to prevent further warring, his actions were wheel-warred by admin Guettarda, who was also deeply involved in the dispute.

I am absolutely convinced the debate cannot be resolved by WP:DR or by mediation. Even a cursory review of the discussions involved will show the inflexibility on both sides, despite kilobytes of discussion (and megabytes of discussion in other forums over similar issues) It is a fundamental disagreement over implementation of the Foundation's licensing resolution and the non-free content criteria. One group believes that WP:NFCC#8 is a matter to be decided by local consensus on particular articles; the other believes it is to be decided by broader policy and guidelines. What is "significance"? What is "excessive"? Can WP:IFD make rulings on image usage, and not simply on image retention/deletion? What is the appeal process? The ArbCom's input is urgently needed.

Clarification - I should have been more clear that I am not asking the ArbCom to rule on the acceptability of this particular non-free content usage, but rather to hear arguments on the processes and actions taken in this case, which is typical of many other intractible disputes over implementation of WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Guettarda

In mid-August Abu_badali (talk · contribs) filed a [Fair Use Review on the intelligent design article. With the discussion favouring retention of the images in the articles, Videmus_Omnia (talk · contribs) nominated several of these images for deletion, apparently in an attempt to short-circuit the FUR discussion in a "more friendly" atmosphere.

The IfD discussion on the two images in question, were closed by Nv8200p (talk · contribs) (1; 2). Although the consensus had been to keep the images, Nv8200p (talk · contribs) declared that the images were not acceptable fair use in the intelligent design and Philip E. Johnson articles. Not only was this not a conclusion that could have been drawn from the discussion, it was also not a valid IfD closure, especially since the issue was still open at WP:FUR. User:Nv8200p, ElinorD (talk · contribs), User:Videmus_Omnia and Quadell (talk · contribs) then edit-warred to try to force deletion of the images from these articles, and to remove the appropriate fair use rationales from the images. In the course of these actions they abused rollback and Twinkle for the purpose of edit warring. After his 3 revert of the Philip E. Johnson article, User:Nv8200p protected the article, in clear violation of the page protection policy.

When I noticed this protection, I unprotected the page. I did not revert the page again (having unprotected it I felt that it would be wrong to do so). I then reported what I had done on AN/I, and said that n uninvolved admin needs to re-protect .

There are real problems with the way that a small group appears to have declared themselves to be the arbiters of "fair use", and make rulings which bear little resemblance to the deletion debates upon which the close is ostensibly based. User:Quadell, for example, has closed IfD's as "delete" against consensus, after he participated in the deletion debate. In this case, User:Nv8200p closed two IfDs, declared what was and what wasn't acceptable fair use, and went on to scold me for questioning his pronouncement. That attitude seems to run through this group: these editors are willing to use rollback (or Twinkle, in the case on the case of User:Videmus_Omnia) on good faith edits by established editors, just because they disagreed with them.

There is a pattern of disruptive behaviour by these editors (one of whom, User:Abu badali, appears to be ignoring a prior caution by the arbcomm) may merit looking into, but the major problem is a systemic one about how things are done. If Misplaced Pages no longer operates by consensus, then that change needs to be formalised. If it still operates by consensus, then we need to work within that system.

Statement by Nv8200p

There has been a slate of new editors joining the discussions at WP:IFD. The new editors are having trouble understanding the movement in Misplaced Pages to create a free content encyclopedia and I have obviously not done a good job of explaining this to them. I forgot about the recent principles on non-free content established in this ARBCOM case and I could have pointed the new editors to this information, especially item 10 - "Policies such as Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria or foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, if they apply to particular content, cannot be overruled by consensus." I made other mistakes in handling the issue of the Non-free media at Intelligent design and I'll apologize again here for my transgressions.

Some of the issues we need decided are:

  • 1. If a copyrighted image is kept because it passes NFCC in one article, can it be deleted from articles where it does not pass NFCC and is WP:IFD the correct forum for that decision. Many think that the articles talk page is the correct forum and I disagree.
  • 2. If an image is kept but deleted from other articles is WP:DRV the right forum to request a review. A DRV Admin says "No" as no deletion (or decison not to delete) the image from Misplaced Pages has occurred. If not, then where do we go?
  • 3. Do book covers (magazine covers, etc) belong in articles that are not about the book, but just mention the book as a reference. There is a real attempt to delete NFCC here.
  • 4. How far can an admin go to enforce his decision pending a formal review. Protect the article? Block editors reverting his decision? Get usurping admins sanctioned?

We really need some guidance on these issues at this point. Thanks.

Statement by Duae Quartunciae

I understand the policy on non-free content to be a formal Exemption policy for the English Misplaced Pages to a strong anti non-free content resolution of the Foundation in March 2007. Thus we have here both a strong push from the foundation for no non-free content at all, combined with a local consensus at the English wikipedia for exemptions, which is allowed by the foundation. Much of this dispute concerns the nature of exemptions themselves; some of it concerns (IMO) excessive demands being placed to justify the exemptions.

I would like the following points clarified.

  • The English wikipedia has a formal exemption policy that provides for limited use of such content, with the aim of enhancing the quality of the encyclopedia. Some editors believe that removal of such content will never compromise quality; but this is not the perspective expressed in policy. Policy recognizes that there is sometimes a tension between the goals of free content and quality content. I suspect this is understood by most contributors, but a plain statement will be useful in a couple of more extreme cases that need not be identified.
  • The policy does not require images to be "necessary" or "essential" for understanding. It requires them to be "significant". I understand "significant" as contrasting with "negligible". It rules out the merely decorative, or the navigational; but it allows images that enhance understanding of the topic. Understanding is not a binary either/or proposition; but something that grows and develops as one learns more about a topic. It is uncontroversial in pedagogy that well-chosen images contribute significantly to understanding, in a way that cannot be replaced with text. Without images, you can still develop understanding, but it is often more difficult, more prone to error, and some aspects of the topic may be lost. If a non-free image makes a substantive contribution, which cannot be replaced by text or a free image, then it meets the significance requirement of policy.
  • Significance is a content matter. A novice may miss out on significance that only becomes apparent with a bit of background in the subject. I would like to propose, as a matter of guidance on applying policy, that where there is a strong consensus for significance expressed by the editors of an article that this should be given weight. It is not appropriate to presume that they are all just making excuses for the sake of maintaining a nice decoration.
  • The arguments FOR significance are distinct from the articles themselves. You don't make an argument for the significance of an image in the article; but in the discussions related to application of policy. Sometimes the argument for significance will take on a form of "original research", which is simply not appropriate in an article. But it may still be sufficient to justify the use of the image in the article.
(Deleted argument from my statement. If accepted, I may make an argument then. 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

In summary. The exemption doctrine policy of en.wikipedia gives firm but not impossible hurdles for non-free images. The policy allows for use of image in a number of articles as long as it meets the relevant criteria in each case. When there is a strong consensus for significance of an image by the editors of an article, this should be recognized as a strong indicator that yes, the image actually is significant. The rationale should be a nice concise statement of why there is significance, but not another article in its own right. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ConfuciusOrnis

I'll leave any arguments aside till this gets picked up, assuming it does, and merely note that there are two essential matters that need to be dealt with either here or elsewhere, all other issues I believe are either incidental, or follow directly from these.

  1. Should an admin really override consensus on the application of a highly subjective criteria, in this case sections three and eight of WP:FUC. It seems to me that given they are entirely subjective, greater weight should be given to the consensus of opinion among those most knowledgeable of the matters they are being used to illustrate.
  2. What is the proper venue and procedure for holding debates about the application of those criteria. At the moment, we have a debate spread over multiple venues, many of them, such as IfD's, user talk pages or AN/I, are obviously completely unsuited to the process.

ornis (t) 05:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

In responding to a request earlier this year, article editors have made every effort in good faith to comply fully with policies and guidelines in making fair use of cover illustrations to books and a magazine central to the subject. Editors involved in image deletion have then applied rigidly an obscure or subjective interpretation of policies, appearing to impose decisions rather than providing co-operative assistance on the article talk page, and moving debate to multiple venues more favourable to their specialist viewpoint. Both the process and the guidance in policies or guidelines need to be reviewed. .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Quadell

There obviously exists a content dispute related to this issue: Should the Intelligent Design article use certain non-free images? Granted, the ArbCom can't decide this. But there are other important issues as well.

  1. Behavior issues. Videmus Omnia gave a description and preliminary evidence of continued rudeness and a conflict-eager attitude in many editors concerning the application of our non-free content policy. There has been edit-warring, repeated incivility, personal attacks, and a minor wheel war. The statements of some above accuse me personally of edit-warring, deletion against policy, and rudeness (all of which I deny), and these are serious accusations. I have attempted to civilly discuss these issues with many opposed parties on talk pages and it e-mail, but have been unsuccessful. Some of what I deem incivility was carried out by a member of the mediation committee, making fair mediation in that forum unlikely. I'm not sure where to take these behavior issues, but I don't see them abating without some sort of official action.
  2. Policy issues. We are all expected to abide by our non-free content policy, but some cases are not straightforward and must be dealt with individually, with a good-faith attempt to abide by policy while gauging consensus regarding how policy applies in a specific case. When an image may need to be deleted, this is usually decided on WP:IFD. Sometimes editors, who are primarily interested in improving the article the image is in, do not understand our policy and say something along the lines of "Keep, this image is useful in the article and you're being a killjoy for wanting it deleted." While that may be true, it doesn't indicate that the image adheres to policy, and such !votes are typically ignored by processing admins. There is frequent gray area, with an image's advocates offering weak defenses of how the image could conceivably pass (for example) criterion #1 or #8, but obviously motivated by the desire to twist policy to allow a non-free image which is preferred. When such images are found to violate policy, despite their use in decorating an article, they are deleted (and usually upheld at WP:DRV, if contested). There are often hard feelings and bitter assertions of bias, but in terms of applying our policy the system works. The problem with the system, in this case, is that the decision at IFD was not to delete the images (since the images were held to adhere to our policy in other articles), but to remove them from the Intelligent Design article, as a violation in that article. Users such as Kenosis and Guettarda seem to contest the validity of this ruling, believing that I acted against consensus. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have anywhere to appeal. (The issue can't really go to DRV, since the images were not deleted.) Those who, in good faith, believe the decision at IFD to have been legitimate, remove the images from Intelligent Design in order to enforce policy. Those who sincerely believe that my closing was illegitimate have no real option except (a) give in, or (b) re-add the images. Thus we have continuing edit wars and wheel wars. Without some mechanism to resolve the dispute, I can't see how it will end. Could the ArbCom supply such a mechanism, or describe what existing method could be used for a mechanism? (A !vote on IFD is dominated by those who primarily want to enforce policy (even if they only have a passing familiarity with ID), while a strawpoll on Talk:Intelligent Design will be dominated by those who primarily want to improve that article (even if they only have a passing familiarity with NFCC). Thus the choice of venue is likely to be contentious, as it will probably dictate the results. This is why an ArbCom statement would be helpful.) – Quadell 14:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Splash

A recurrent notion in the above statements is that it is unclear to people how best to deal with tricky (non-)-fair-use images, particularly when the decision is different as a function of the article in question. This evidently requires some policy and/or procedural innovation to be developed to be developed to clarify everyone's thinking on the point. Such innovation is not within the committee's power (imo), and they could not useful institute such a thing if they tried. Policy committees in various forms at various times have been demolished as not being useful, and the arbcom is no doubt mindful of that.

The other question appears to be whether admins are utilising their tools and authority appropriately or not. That is a question for arbcom; that would have to be the scope of this case. Whether the evidence related to this question and presented above is substantial enough is for the arbitrators to decide.

Lack of clarity in the image policy on this point is probably the fault of the Foundation who wrote what has turned out to be a confusing resolution. Thus is the problem with 'Policy on High' in a ground-up project. Perhaps the committee can make some attempt at clarifying it for the English Misplaced Pages, but they'd normally do so by examining current or past successful practises. Unfortunately, it is exactly those things that are in turmoil at present. Further image-related legislation from 'on Medium' might well work no better than the 'on High' stuff we already have, since there is a proven tendency for people to always take such legislatory items to their illogical conclusions because exercising the power conferred by resolutions of the committee or the Foundation gives individuals the perception of more power than they usually have. Splash - tk 16:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Swatjester

I feel that some of the users named as parties to this case are actually quite uninvolved. Specifically, Killer Chihuahua is being named as a party solely for criticizing a bad decision by an editor, something that is only tangentially related to the case here, if even at all. I also cannot see any reasoning in your statement why ConfuciousOrnis is named as a party. (Disclaimer: I have not viewed all the diffs you provided yet). Same for Odd nature and Due Quartunciae.

Consider trimming down the unnecessary parties on this list to focus on only the people you feel really are involved. ⇒ SWATJester 16:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Odd nature

A content tempest in a teapot. Several problems with this filing: 1. When were other DR steps followed? RFAR is not the first stop. 2. There was overwhelming consensus at the articles where the images were removed that their use did not violate WP:NFCC#8 and that the images should stay. 3. Consensus at WP:AN/I was also that there was no violation of WP:NFCC#8 and that the images could be used. 4. The consensus seen in these venues has consistently been ignored/dismissed/discounted by Videmus Omnia, Nv8200p, Quadell, ElinorD, and Abu badali. They should simply acknowledge that a large number of editors and fellow admins simply do not share their interpretation of WP:NFCC and its application at these images and work together with them to reach an understanding, not bother the Arbcom. Odd nature 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/1)

  • Reject. Mostly a content dispute. Additionally the Committee does not make policy on Free content or fair use. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. Obviously this is a dispute about an article's content, but whether it is "content" qua the same manner that we intended when we said "we don't do content disputes", I'm not sure. The image use policy is what's really being considered. Either way, I don't think that Arbitration is really the best place for this. James F. (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject, for now. IMO, there seems to be a difference of opinion on how the non-free images policy should operate in cases that are not cut & dried either way. Can admins over-ride local consensus either on an article or other places based on their belief that local consensus cannot override the image policy as they interpret it? Either way, I think the parties & others should at least try harder to resolve their differences & beat the non-free image policy into a shape more people can agree on. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES

Initiated by Phil Sandifer at 00:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I am leaving appropriate notice on everybody's talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

No prior dispute resolution has been tried, as this is a major issue of policy that, frankly, cuts to the heart of our dispute resolution procedures, and, furthermore, is a rather immediate issue.

Statement by Phil Sandifer

After the initial (failed) proposal of WP:BADSITES as policy, a successful attempt was made to add language to Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks that forbids references to off-site attacks on Wikipedians. Although well-intentioned, this language is being construed by its advocates as banning mention of sites that attack Wikipedians in the article namespace, as in articles like Judd Bagley and Overstock.com. In these cases, NPOV coverage of the subject requires consideration of the website antisocialmedia.net. This website is, it should be noted, a despicable site devoted to ugly smear campaigns against people, including Misplaced Pages editors. However it is a relevant part of discussion of Overstock.com, and to remove mention to it is to violate our basic standards of being an encyclopedia.

Unfortunately, attempts to clarify NPA about this matter have met with resistance, and editors are repeatedly removing even the mention of antisocialmedia.net (not even links to it - just mentions that this is the website's name) from the article space.

NPOV is a Foundation issue and is non-negotiable on en. No policy may be written to supercede it, no matter what consensus of editors on the talk page of that policy might form. As the very nature of this problem is that an attempt is being made to "discuss" and "vote" on something that is inherently beyond the realm of discussion and voting, I see no recourse other than taking the matter to the arbitration committee to rule on whether removal of material such as the name of the antisocialmedia.net website can be justified under any policy whatsoever.

Addendum

And now an involved administrator, User:Tom harrisson, has blanked the Judd Bagley article while the deletion debate is ongoing and protected it from editing.

The conduct of those supporting BADSITES and its derivative policies is crossing lines all over, and furthermore that conduct stems directly from a poorly thought out arbitration ruling that did not put any bounds whatsoever on the idea that sites that contain harassment should not be linked to. This is an unholy mess with personal feelings running hot and being hurt. But basic policy is being thrown to the wayside in an increasingly frenzied attempt to trade writing a thorough, NPOV encyclopedia in for an end to harassment. The phrase "The operation was a success, but the patient died" springs to mind.

I implore the arbcom to take this case, for more or less the same reasons they accepted the Badlydrawnjeff case - because there is no other body on en.wikipedia who is capable of sorting this mess out. Phil Sandifer 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

This is not a traditional case and the impulse will be to decline it, but the BADSITES (failed) policy, now added to the No Personal Attacks page (currently protected), has been used to justify an incredible amount of edit warring and generally bad behavior on both policy pages and numerous articles including Don Murphy, Michael Moore and Judd Bagley. There probably have been more. It seems like some kind of definitive statement is required, such as . Thatcher131 00:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Mackensen. You heard right. Just read the page history and talk page. Thatcher131 01:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring on Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edit warring on Michael Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) revert last two edits. as per WP:NPA#External links. 'll revert forever. see discussion page for policy you're violating

Statement by Viridae

It should also be noted that links were removed citing the relevant section of NPA when cyde used them as evidence to back up allegations of sockpuppetry against SlimVirgin when he posted notice that he had blocked the sockpuppet account. This was done repeatedly despite the vast amount of criticism it attracted. While this may seem unrelated I believe if arbcom takes this case on they should weigh in on whether linking such attack sites in a constructive manner (ie as evidence as well as in the mainspace) is really a personal attack, and therefore falls under the remit of that policy. Ie if a site is linked to to attack someone, sure its a personal attack, but this argument appears to be over no attacking use of a site. Viridae 00:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Picaroon

We have a large amount of users committed to both supporting and opposing the #External links section of the Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks policy. As noted above, revert wars on multiple articles have commenced, and both sides are convinced tha policy supports them - those in favor of removing all links to attack sites by Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks, and those in favor of maintaining encyclopedic coverage even of topics we all find distasteful by Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Since the arbitration committee passed the principle (Links to attack sites in the MONGO case) that spurred the rejected Misplaced Pages:Attack sites proposal as well as the above-linked section which is currently policy, I think that only the committee can resolve this. Simply put, too many members of the community are divided on the issue for consensus to form, and the root of the dispute is with an arbitration case anyways. The committee should only very rarely step in to resolve policy disputes between users, but I think this rises to that level.

Even if a full case of the standard case is not accepted, I request the committee at least thoroughly discuss it - and if possible make the whole of their discussion, not just the decision (if there is one), public. Picaroon (t) 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

I would call attention to this quote from Jimbo, which calls for a thoughtful, balanced approach to site links, not an absolutist, zero-tolerance, "under-no-circumstances" approach as some have insisted be taken. I would also invite everybody to read my essay, which I've been accused of spamming around, but nobody can say is off-topic here, at least. And, to the point of how the suppression of outside criticism makes Misplaced Pages look to the outside world, a couple of interesting quotes:

...the BADSITES ploy, and labeling any site an "attack site" that contains comments wounding to adminiswiki feelings, seems to be a recurring theme. I'm starting to feel like I'm dealing with Scientologists, and that "attack site" is their equivalent of "suppressive person."
Teresa Nielsen Hayden on her Making Light blog
Except that item set off yet another edit-war, a "meta"-issue fight, having to do with a Misplaced Pages administrative faction deeming MichaelMoore.com an "attack site". Which would make it liable to the penalty of having all its links purged from Misplaced Pages, as a kind of banishment. And that's scary. It's hard to convey to the acolytes within the cult of Misplaced Pages how petty and in fact, downright creepy, it can appear to outsiders.
Seth Finkelstein on his Infothought blog

I should also note that in pretty much every recent case that I know of in which somebody has tried to have a link removed as an "attack site" this attempt has failed. I think it was sidestepped once or twice by substituting a link to a different site (that in turn linked to the so-called "attack site"), but that's hardly a shining victory for link-suppression. In a number of other cases, the link-keeping advocates won handily. Thus, if ArbCom holds to its position of not making policy but only following and interpreting it, and that policy is made by consensus as seen by actual editor actions, then there is a clear sign that consensus fails to favor flat link bans. *Dan T.* 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Mackensen: Yes, people have (ab)used the policy against actual article content... for instance, this edit, adding a relevant reference, was not only reverted as an "attack site link", but the editor making it was actually blocked for it. *Dan T.* 01:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment to 166.166.239.195: Your comments seem off-topic here, since this is about external links to so-called "attack sites", not the making of an article here into a so-called "attack article" itself. There are other policies to deal with the latter situation. *Dan T.* 04:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment to Kirill: Earlier, when I mentioned the topic of "attack sites" in that other case, in response to somebody else who had done so, I got criticized by an admin for bringing my "holy crusade" to a case where it's only tangentially on-topic, but apparently you regard it as a major issue of that case now? *Dan T.* 04:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment to FloNight: Unfortunately, there's a pushy faction around that does seem to regard rulings as "the law of the land", so hence a need for a new decision to disabuse them of this notion. ("The ArbCom has ruled that the ArbCom's rulings need not be followed!" ) *Dan T.* 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply to MONGO: Your references to ED are a red herring, since, although that site was the subject of the original decision, the fights and abuses of it later very rarely have had anything to do with that particular site. I can recall only one case where somebody actually was fighting to link to that site, to an essay there that he considered relevant to some point, and this debate fizzled out when those charming ED folks added a porn picture to the page in question... even the erstwhile proponents of the link lost interest at that point. The debate since then has centered around other sites, as you seem to acknowledge when you pull a bait-and-switch; after getting people in a righteous lather of indignation about how disgusting ED is, you suddenly change the subject to a claim that "less than realistic and/or intelligent commentary" is even more disgusting and in need of banning. You would have the ruling clique of Misplaced Pages set itself up as a board of censors to decide what sorts of commentary are to be regarded as suitable for the tender eyes of Wikipedians to be allowed to peruse. But if all those outside sites followed the same rules as us, and banned the same users as us, and in all ways adhered to the same standards as us, then what would be the point of their existing at all? There's some value to an outside forum that is not run by the same people, with the same friends and enemies, under the same standards of decorum, as our site... a free marketplace of ideas, which is often unruly and messy and noisy, but also sometimes exposes truths that those in power want to suppress, demands it. Sometimes I too wonder why I'm still here; the free and open community I was originally attracted to, one which was not afraid of outside criticism, has been replaced by one that's all too eager to put its collective heads in the sand and cower in fear at all those evil harrassers and stalkers and trolls (oh my!) on the "attack sites". It's time to draw a line in the sand against censorship and suppression of criticism. *Dan T.* 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply to JzG: You're right that I don't favor or advocate making direct attacks, either on or off wiki. I do, however, counsel that those who participate in a highly visible role here need, as a practical matter, to develop a fairly thick skin for criticism, fair or unfair, that will result. Supposedly the role of the press is to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable"; this is hardly completely fair or NPOV of them, but even more unfair is the opposite tack of comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, but unfortunately that seems to be the aim of much policy enforcement on Misplaced Pages these days. The powerful, high-status, and well-connected editors are considered to need special protection against their feelings being hurt, which outranks any impulse to try to be fair and respectful to those of lesser status who have contrary viewpoints that annoy the powerful clique. Yes, I think it makes some sense to judge a community by how it treats its least-liked enemies, and how it is (or isn't) fair and reasonable even to people who are unfair and unreasonable to it. *Dan T.* 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I've been on a version of Daniel Brandt's HiveMind, and Jeff Merkey's Merkeylaw... I've been the target of flame wars and personal attacks online since I first went online in my college freshman year 25 years ago. Instead of going to pieces about it or demanding censorship, I live with it and laugh at it. *Dan T.* 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Krimpet

The lynchpin of the BADSITES fiasco has been the findings of MONGO RfAR, which have been vaguely interpreted and expanded upon to form the failed WP:BADSITES policy and its vestiges at WP:NPA. People have used the loose wording of the RfAR to justify all sorts of actions, from massive edit warring, to violating 3RR, and most chillingly, compromising our NPOV as Phil Sandifer explains above, all in the name of enforcing ArbCom's will, even though individual arbitrators such as Fred Bauder have cautioned that the findings are being widely misinterpreted. I urge ArbCom to clarify the findings of the MONGO RfAR and its intended interpretations in some way, as it is the only way that this dispute can be brought to a definitive close. --krimpet⟲ 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Amarkov

Normally, I would really strongly oppose this for being an Arbcom case to create policy. But since a previous Arbcom decision is the basis of that policy, I suppose that accepting this case for clarification would be best. -Amarkov moo! 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by 166.166.239.195

The Judd Bagley article is a poorly written attack piece written as a "biography". It uses selective quoting to include "a flame war among 14-year-old boys", "conspiracy propaganda", "crazy and profane attacks", and "Sleazey McSleaze admits to Sleaziness" to describe Judd Bagley and his work. It violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. When I tried to address these concerns it was reverted as "vandalism" by User:Phil_Sandifer, and then semi-protected. I would urge the arbcom to look into his actions, as it is my understanding that WP:BLP concerns should be addressed first, and that administrators should not use their powers in editorial disputes. 166.166.239.195 03:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(short) Statement by Purples

I believe this is an issue requiring leadership, and a clear direction, from ArbCom. As well as the passionate advocates on both sides, this is causing confusion all over the wiki, here is one recent, typical example. - Purples 06:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

I have an essay as well...here. This is a no brainer...there simply is no reason to link to websites that violate our editor's personal identity or post ridiculous commentary in some blog or do nothing but attack our contributors. The vast majority of these sites completely fail RS anyway. Websites that offer real critical analysis of our editors and of Misplaced Pages are a whole different matter. Has anyone taken a look at ED lately...the website grows more disgusting by the day...why in the heck would we link to it? How could it possibly be of any encyclopedic necessity? I can't say blanket bans are a good idea and I do agree with a measured and mature response to any delinkings as a rule, but if we "take down" regulations that limit what is acceptable to be linking to, then we open the door for our demise. I have seen entirely too many editors abandon this website due to off-wiki harassment and I can't stand by and simply watch others feel compelled to leave because these attacks are brought into Misplaced Pages. When admins and editors help facilitate these attacks by demanding we link to specific websites, it really makes me ask myself why I am still editing here. Well, ED is hardly the worst for at the very least they do claim to be a parody site, so certainly, those that pretend to be serious places where "reviews" are made regarding this website and it's contributors, but are instead dominated by banned editors with an axe to grind and consist primarily of less than realistic and/or intelligent commentary, should not pass the smell test either. Sandifer argues that websites like antisocialmedia.net are critical to have in appropriate articles...well, how come, exactly? It is but a blog, fails RS and is not notable for inclusion, especially if you add in the fact that the site is used to attack our contributors. Perhaps it is time to see if a line can be drawn in the sand which will help us specify what is and what isn't acceptable to link to.--MONGO 09:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by David Gerard

(I've been editing Judd Bagley, mostly just copyediting. I also recently blocked an overstock.com IP range for spamming and sockpuppetry, which block has received unusual levels of blogosphere attention for a spammer block. I personally couldn't give a hoot about Judd Bagley or overstock.com's existence and would quite like them to go away and never darken our encyclopedia again unless and until they can comport themselves like decent humans, something I personally suspect is unlikely.)

I do not seek to play down Bagley's impact on the victims of his (reliable-sourced) Internet stalking behaviour, or their strength of feeling on this matter. The guy is a completely odious arsehole (reliable-sourced). If he were hit by a fortuitous falling asteroid, the world would be greatly improved.

But. If anyone asserts that a community policy can override NPOV, they are simply wrong and the policy is simply broken and must be ignored - and those edit-warring their misinterpretation are 100% wrong and need to be made to understand why in no uncertain terms.

I note also that Wikimedia communities who think they can vote to override NPOV get their wiki taken away by the Foundation. c.f. the old Belarusian Misplaced Pages. The Siberian Misplaced Pages is headed the same way, and the Moldovan Misplaced Pages was closed for quite some time for completely failing at NPOV. The ArbCom needs to take this case for the defense of the wiki.

We're here to write an encyclopedia. NPA is a means to that end. If it turned out that writing an NPOV encyclopedia required personal attacks, flaming and trolling ... that'd be the rule. As it happens, NPA is pretty much essential to maintaining a working encyclopedia-writing community. But allowing that to mess with article space is unacceptable.

Note also, by the way, that antisocialmedia.net was not linked in the article - it was merely named. Nor were Judd Bagley's on-Misplaced Pages activities mentioned at all ... because they haven't come up in any BLP-quality sources, at all.

There are many people firmly convinced they are right to purge article space of links to websites they think attack Wikipedians - despite damage to the actual articles. This tendency was not nipped in the bud, and requires urgent attention right now.

There's an AFD on the present version of the article. It seems to be proceeding more or less sensibly, modulo strong feelings from many of Bagley's on-Misplaced Pages victims. The warring over "attack sites" needs to be quashed, and disinterested editorial processes allowed to proceed - David Gerard 09:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by CBDunkerson

A link to an attack is effectively the same as making or quoting the attack directly on Misplaced Pages, and thus should be treated exactly the same... which in the case of a nasty comment to a user generally means a warning or block and sometimes (not always) removal of the offending material. On the other hand, linking to an attack in an article may actually be perfectly valid if the attack itself is a notable encyclopedic event (e.g. 'Osama bin Laden writes a blog entry vowing to kill the evil Jimbo because he drinks the blood of muslim babies' - clear attack on a Misplaced Pages user, but absolutely notable for inclusion). Extending the 'protective' concept to ban any link to a site which frequently hosts attacks is excessive and short-sighted... such sites may still contain some material which is valid and necessary for discussion or encyclopedic coverage. If the link doesn't have some merit then it can and will be removed under existing content policies. Further extending the principle, as has now been done, to ban all mention of a web-site, even without a link, if even a single 'attack' (in the opinion of the individual editor) has been made is the very height of absurdity.

Consider: Michael Moore and THF are both notable individuals who have a pre-existing history of dispute. THF becomes a Misplaced Pages user, brings that ongoing dispute here with edits about Moore, and Moore retaliates on his web-site by encouraging people to edit THF's page. Suddenly, Michael Moore's website is declared an 'attack site' and all links and references to it (even on the Michael Moore page itself) are removed from Misplaced Pages... in large part by users who have an avowed political opposition to Moore. This isn't some hypothetical absurdity like the Jimbo and Osama bit. This actually happened.

This practice needs to be banned and the users who continually abuse and mis-cast policy, arbcom rulings, and/or random comments to serve their own biases rather than the interests of the encyclopedia need to be told that enough is now very definitely more than enough. --CBD 12:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment to FloNight. This is about disruptive user conduct. Specifically, some users claim that the Committee already wrote a new policy and that they are allowed to edit war, block, censor, and otherwise steamroll to enforce it. That's about as disruptive as user conduct gets. --CBD 12:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

WP:BADSITES has been a source of disruption from the beginning, even in the days when it was only being applied to talk pages. In practice it is now being used as a weapon in real world conflicts, in order to disrupt external links in articles. It has never reached consensus, and when it was forum-shopped to WP:NPA, it still failed to gain consensus. Yet people continue to enforce it, which I think is already cause for ARBCOM to step in.

But ARBCOM is also responsible for the single most problematic aspect: this definition of "attack site". That definition came from the original MONGO case: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances." This has consistently been interpreted extremely broadly to include any site where anyone says anything anywhere about the identity of a Misplaced Pages editor, even if there is no direct link to that statement. In the case of TNH's website, the link to the site as a whole was removed on the basis of a comment to a blog entry— one comment out of several hundred! It took a fair bit of work to find the comment even when I knew which blog entry it went with.

The definition of "attack site" is overbroad. I think we could do without it entirely, but in any case ordinary sensible people would not understand the term as it has been used. And it has been coupled with a general lowering of civility; MONGO, for instance, has trotted out a "guilt by association" attack on me when I've objected to the application of this non-policy.

I don't see any way for this disruption to end without ARBCOM intervention. Either they must clarify their earlier rulings sufficiently so that we can formulate policy unambiguously, or they need to say "look, this was rejected; you can't keep applying it as if it were law." Mangoe 13:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum re Misplaced Pages Review

The BADSITES mess began with a concerted effort by User:DennyColt to remove links to Misplaced Pages Review, a site critical of Misplaced Pages of highly variable (and rather often dubious) quality. They do talk about editor identities there; I would tend to expect that any external site discussing Misplaced Pages would do so.

Back when suppressing WR was the project at hand, both D.Tobias and I predicted that the erasures would escape from talk and user space, and slop over into article space. That's exactly what has happened. The flip side, however, is that the campaign against WR has evaporated. Back in July there were 193 links to WR review, about a quarter of which were associated with ArbCom cases. Yesterday, I found 200+ links. There doesn't seem to be a reason to deal with WR, because nobody seems interested anymore in erasing links to it. It seems to me that ArbCom can stick to dealing with the manifest disruption in article space. Mangoe 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

I think the ArbComm needs to clarify and bound the remedy in the Mongo case. The remedy itself has become a cause of dispute and drama, which I believe rises to the level of disruption. Whether a separate case is the right vehicle I am uncertain. It may be that a strong warning to certain users about the case specificness of that ruling would suffice, it may be that the ruling itself needs to be edited retroactively to make the case specific nature more clear. It may be that we just need a definition of an "attack site", or, since I think that wording is itself part of the problem, a replacement with "attack page" combined with a definition thereof.

I've heard of, but not seen diffs for, cases where preexisting article references and external links were removed because of this mess. People who remember when and where that occurred should present such examples on the evidence page to help the committee. GRBerry 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

This definitely needs to be worked through and clarified, but I'm not sure if ArbCom is the correct venue. There are competing imperatives here, but also some common ground:

  • linking to material which directly attacks or outs editors is clearly a form of harassment, and has been used for exactly that purpose
  • banning all links to any site which contains such material, without reference to its appropriateness, wider content and the prominence of the attacks within the site, leads to needless drama.

Some people remove links to sites carrying attacks, and this is done in good faith. The MONGO arbitration is usually cited in this context.

There is a long-running campaign by a very small number of editors to allow links to one or two particular sites, especially Misplaced Pages Review. I would be extremely uncomfortable ifg any clarification of policy were taken as carte blanche to lnk to Misplaced Pages Review, as its format and structure, together with its user community (many banned abusers of Misplaced Pages) is such that what it says on any subject is simply not useful, and every thread is at risk of being hijacked and used to attack and harass. A lot of us have been savagely attacked on Misplaced Pages Review for evil actions such as preventing User:JB196 from using Misplaced Pages to promote his book, and blocking his two hundred or more sockpuppets. If we start allowing links to sites which specialise in attacking and outing, among which I would count Encyclopaedia Dramatica and Misplaced Pages Review, then a lot of us would feel harassed and intimidated; the feeling of harassment would be inherent in links to the site, because the sites have so much vitriol and the editors of the sites are so often vicious. Sites which make a regular practice of attacking members of the Misplaced Pages community by name must have a very high bar indeed to linking.

However, sites like michaelmoore.com clearly are not attack sites by any rational definition. Posting a link to michaelmoore.com is only harassment if it is done with the specific intent of harassing someone.

Then we have sites like antisocialmedia.net, which exist to attack everybody, and only attack Wikipedians in passing. Bagley is employed to pursue his employer's holy crusade against naked short selling, and is apparently given every encouragement to viciously attack anybody who stands in the way. He does this very well.

With both antisocialmedia have a very specific question: if someone is intimately linked to a site, should we suspend all consideration of our editors' feelings and link as a service to the reader, even where the site has no redeeming values whatsoever. The problem for me is that if we say yes, we are probably also saying yes to linking to Misplaced Pages Review, which is also devoid of any merit as a source for any article. If we allow links to Misplaced Pages Review - and probably if we allow links to antisocialmedia - then I suspect we will lose some long-standing contributors.

At the root of all this is the intent of the MONGO arbitration, whihc was to stop people using links to external attacks in order to harass others. I see absolutely no evidence that anybody involved in this case would countenance the use of any link to any site as a means of harassment. Not wanting to speak for others, but past exchanges with Dan Tobias indicate to me that he absolutely would not support the use of any link as a means of harassment (Dan, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). However, this raises a fundamental problem in that some editors will feel harassed if there are any links to some sites, and those will be the sites which prompt the biggest wars. Misplaced Pages Review, antisocialmedia, and ED if you want to count the bunch of EDers who want an article on ED.

I also see two competing philosophies of Misplaced Pages. On one hand we have people who believe that contant should be included unless there is a pressing reason not to include it; on the other hand we have people who think it is the job of the person proposing to include content, to achieve consensus to do so. I put myself in the latter camp, partly because of a lot of WP:BLP wars in the past and partly because it's my reading of bold, revert, discuss.

This is not something that's going to be easily solved. My recommendation would be a clarification of the MONGO arbitration that supports the removal of links to sites which *specialise* in attacking or outing Misplaced Pages editors, or using links to *any* site as a means to harass or attack others; I would also like to see a clarification that if there is no consensus to include a link then it should not be included. It should not be necessary for an editor who feels attacked, to achieve more than a significant minority support in order to be spared those feelings. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Dan, re thick skin: I hope you never find out what it's like to be viciously attacked in a medium over which you have no control, on spurious grounds, and to have that attack repeated as fact by individuals with an axe to grind, to the point where even your friends start to wonder about it. That's what happened to SlimVirgin, and it's happened to me in the past as well. It's simply unacceptable to tell victims of despicable attacks to grow a thicker skin. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tom harrison

We have policies, not operating programs for admin-bots. The way to deal with this is to apply the policy with reason and good sense. Dispute resolution exists to deal with people who are not doing that. In some cases dispute resolution has not yet been tried; in another, it is in progress. Tom Harrison 14:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

The oft-quoted sentence in the MONGO decision that "a website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Misplaced Pages participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to Misplaced Pages pages under any circumstances" was drafted by me before being accepted by the arbitrator who drafted the final decision. (I submitted this and some other proposals anonymously at that time, because I was still a newby and was not ready to enter into the Encyclopedia Dramatica mess just yet, but I was the original drafter.)

I submitted this proposal because the original draft decision that an arbitrator had prepared on the workshop page already provided that

"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user and are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."

but it did not contain any definition of an "attack site." Editors commenting on the workshop were faulting the decision on that basis. My view was that "attack site," in this context, should be given some more clarity. A site that merely teased Wikipedians in a reasonable if satirical way, or that made good-faith criticisms of people's editing, should not be deemed an "attack site" resulting in unwarranted blocks and linkbans. What I thought put ED beyond the pale was its combination of vicious personal attacks on Wikipedians (and others) with the publication of (actual or purported) personal identifying information of several editors who choose, as is their right, to edit here anonymously. The dangers created by the irresponsible practice of publicizing editors' private information without their consent are well-known to the Arbitration Committee and need not be rehearsed yet again.

With a year's more experience, this principle as originally drafted still makes a clear and necessary point, but may need some refinement. For example, I did not have in mind, when I wrote it, the type of site that contains "outing" information but also contains legitimate, or at least colorable if ofttimes mistaken or misguided, commentary on and criticisms of Misplaced Pages and its editors. Opinions vary, of course, on whether such a site should be classified as an attack site and link-banned. In a perfect world, such sites would render the task of classifying them unnecessary by emphasizing their good-faith commentary while minimizing unnecessary personal remarks about people and completely eliminating the disclosure of private individuals' identifying information. A perfect world, of course, is not where we live.

As applied to the present case, the MONGO principle as written remains sound. It refers to "websites that engage in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identity of Misplaced Pages participants." A single or isolated instance of something is not a practice, nor is discussion of generally known information about a prominent individual in public life equivalent to the relevation of private facts (although publicizing leaked, culled, or now-withdrawn information about other editors might be; I hesitate to discuss specific examples because I do not want to draw attention to problematic instances of this behavior). Thus, it does not follow from the MONGO decision that a site that reveals borderline private information about a single editor must be banned from all linking in article-space. The community might choose to establish such a policy, or editors on an individual article might decide to drop a link, but this is not compelled by the ArbCom ruling.

Of course it goes without saying that I am commenting only on the meaning of the sentence that I had in mind when I wrote it and I cannot speak for the arbitrators who decided to include it in the final decision of the case. I also express no view on whether this case represents an appropriate vehicle or forum for addressing the issues presented. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Samiharris

The title of this section is a misnomer. "Badsites" would have prohibited linking to sites containing attacks, and I agree that could have been too broadly interpreted. But what is at issue here is a link to a website that consists in large measure of attacks on Misplaced Pages editors. Click on the website and you get an attack on an administrator who offended the "nauseating" (reliably sourced) Bagley. The article did not suffer nor was made less "neutral" by removal of a reference to the article.

The editors pushing this issue are behaving almost as if NPOV requires addition of such sites to articles in order for them to be neutral. This is nonsense.

For many months the Overstock.com article has a brief and neutral reference to this same smear site without mentioning it. Over the past day or two, without seeking consensus over what he knew was a highly charged issue, Phil Sandifer and other editors repeated inserted the name of the site in the Overstock.com article. They did so knowing that NPA didn't allow references to that site, and they also knew or should have known that the site contained on its front page an attack on a Misplaced Pages administrator.

Not even the numerous Overstock.com cheerleaders and Bagley fans made a serious effort to include specific references to that website. The actions of editors who had not previously edited that article, adding the name of the site and making other hasty changes (such as removing and then reinserting a section on board departures), was disruptive.

To justify his actions, Phil Sandifer and others cite NPOV. I don't see the connection. The Overstock article is not more or less neutral because it contains the name of the site. Neither is the Bagley article. At the present time, because of BLP concerns, the article is now a stub that is a sentence long and is protected as a stub. Thus there is no live dispute concerning that article.

As for the Overstock article, there is no dispute other than what was caused by editors rushing in and, disruptively, adding the name of the site to make a point. If you want to make policy or change policy, go ahead and do so. But it should not be done by zealots disrupting articles because they feel that articles must include refences to such sites.Samiharris 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Casey Abell

I've had two run-ins with BADSITES. Once SlimVirgin reverted a link I had made at Criticism of Misplaced Pages to a thread on Misplaced Pages Review. I had originally nowikied the link; another editor eventually made it live before SV's reversion. The thread outed nobody and didn't make any personal attacks. The reason I linked it was to illustrate how some editors have intentionally vandalized WP to test the reliability of the encyclopedia. The thread discussed exactly such an effort.

SV has been subjected to so much ridiculous abuse from Misplaced Pages Review that I didn't have the heart to restore the link. Instead, I found another (impeccable) source to make the same point. Okay, BADSITES didn't really bite me in the BADPARTS there, but I still didn't like the revert of a harmless link.

My other close encounter was a lot more frustrating, and I yelped about it on WP:ANI. Perverted-Justice, an organization that seems to upset a lot of people around here, has famously or notoriously, depending on your mood today, called WP a "corporate sex offender." I think the cirticism is unfair, but I think a lot of stuff in Criticism of Misplaced Pages is unfair. Perverted-Justice probably thinks the "Criticism" section of its WP article - which accuses the organization of every crime and misdemeanor including war in the Middle East, the Lindbergh kidnapping, the heartbreak of psoriasis, and the entire career of Carrot Top - is unfair.

I tried to link to the site's redirect page from WP, which outed nobody and made no personal attacks. The link got reverted. Then the massive two-dozen-word mention of P-J disappeared entirely from the article, while far lengthier (and sillier) criticisms remain. BADSITES really bit here, and I thought the policy made Misplaced Pages look like a scared old maid from the 1870s.

I'm on record as calling BADSITES the craziest, silliest, most misguided attempt to make policy since the last time I thought about writing policy for Misplaced Pages. I don't understand the urge to rip links out of the encyclopedia that attack no one and divulge no personal information, just because those links may coexist on a site with objectionable material. All sorts of objectionable material is a couple clicks away on the Internet. I ask ArbCom to clarify that the MONGO policy should be applied on a link-by-link basis. Thank you. Casey Abell 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana

WP:NPA is a 'means to an end' policy. Preventing personal attacks from one editor to another helps us build a productive environment, in which the end result is Misplaced Pages, The 💕. In my opinion NPA should not apply to article content. Obviously if someone ads "DESKANA IS A DOUCHE" into an article, then that should be reverted per NPA, as that is an unencyclopedic personal attack. However, if linking to a "BADSITE" is required to build the encyclopedia, then it should be done. A community policy like NPA doesn't override NPOV, which is a foundation issue. As such, I request the arbitration committee accepts this case, to fully review the situation. --Deskana (talky) 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Recuse. Picaroon (t) 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. Newyorkbrad 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

CyclePat

Initiated by Ryan Postlethwaite on behalf of CyclePat at 13:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

  1. CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  1. User talk:CyclePat#Arbcom Notice AMA
  2. Notice to JzG
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by CyclePat

Copied from CyclePat's talkpage.

CyclePat has been indefinately blocked since June 3rd 2007 by the administrator JzG for allegedly trolling. There is a relationship inbetween this block and CyclePat's objection to the closure of the Association of Members Advocates (WP:AMA). After months of negotiation the blocking admin and CyclePat can not come to a resolution. The proposed solution by the blocking admin would have him promis to never mention the AMA again. There is a dead lock because CyclePat believes that he should be permitted to continue talking about that subject. Since there appears to be no concensus or resolution via regular dispute resolution methodes, JzG's block should be reviewed and brought, (and probably a long time ago), before a higher committees than just wikipedia administrators. Being given such an ultimatum, according to CyclePat, feels like persecution because of his beliefs in trying to establish a fair and equitable wikipedia system. Arbcom should step in to make a clear decision on both the AMA and CyclePat's current status.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Cycle Pat is banned by the community until he promises to stop causing disruption over the WP:AMA. There isn't any need for arbitration, and JzG's conduct certainly doesn't need looking at - it's a community decision, not a unilateral one by a rogue admin. CP just needs to drop the AMA, then he can be unblocked - up until that point, as a protective measure for the encyclopedia, he isn't allowed to edit. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

Several of us tried long and hard to get Pat to drop the stick and step away from the horse carcass, without success. Of course Pat has the right to appeal a community ban to ArbCom, but I would note as stated by Ryan that Pat has only to give an undertaking to leave this alone in order to be unblocked.

Pat has the right to appeal the community ban to ArbCom, but I really can't see it as terribly controversial. Acting as advocates for users like User:Cplot more or less ensured the demise of AMA, and Pat's obduracy put double-strength nails in the lid of its coffin.

Statement by SirFozzie

There is nothing for ArbCom to decide here. CyclePat has been blocked due to his disruption in his attempts to bring back WP:AMA. There was discussion on WP:ANI and WP:CSN and with the user several times. It was made clear time and time again that the main condition of any unblock would be that Pat would drop any further attempts to resuscitate the AMA. He has had his chance to bring his view of AMA before Misplaced Pages's members, and they have declined it. SirFozzie 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Moreschi

I think we've dealt with this already. CyclePat's disruptive wikilawyering, time-wasting and general folly unfortunately got him banned. I'd be surprised if anyone wants to unblock. No case to hear. Moreschi 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Radiant

I smell a dead horse. He was blocked for disruptive soapboxing about the now-defunct AMA, and wishes to be unblocked so he can keep soapboxing about the AMA. That does not strike me as a productive solution. >Radiant< 14:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Dtobias

I admit to a bit of disquiet over the concept that somebody can be banned for having a favorite hobby-horse (even if it's a dead one that he likes to beat). Many people have their pet peeves, obsessions, and favorite (lost or otherwise) causes... mine lately, as most of you are probably aware, is the whole BADSITES thing (covered in a case right above this). I'd hate to think that I might be headed for being banned merely for standing up for what I believe in. Looking at the past history of that AMA thing, I see that many of the comments in favor of abolishing it back when it was under discussion took the tack of calling it a "support system for trolls"; well, maybe it was, in the same sense that a defense attorney is a "support system for criminals", but I think there's a valid cause to wish for somebody to help take the side of somebody who's under attack from the powerful ruling clique here, even if most of those people may turn out to actually deserve it. Fairness means that even bad guys should be given a fair shake. That particular organization turned out to be a failed attempt to accomplish this end, but it doesn't mean the end itself is a bad one. *Dan T.* 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Isotope23

This is somewhat in response to what Dtobias said... CyclePat wasn't simply indefinitely blocked because he had a favorite hobby-horse, he was indefinitely blocked because in his defense of said hobby-horse he acted extremely disruptively (trying to subjugate editor assistance under the canopy of AMA when this was clearly not desired by the editors involved in EA is just one example off the top of my head). Arguing your point by writting essays and discussing the issues is one thing; acting in a way that is disruptive and ignoring the fact that multiple editors have asked you to stop multiple times is something else entirely. Nobody will lift CyclePat's block because I think everyone familiar with the situation has reservations that he will return to this sort of behavior if unblocked.--Isotope23 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)

Njyoder 2

Initiated by Crossmr at 05:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties


Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Njyoder has been notified .
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The individual was previously the subject of an arbcom case for this behaviour. It can be found here Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder. I should clarify that I also sought input if it was necessary to repeat the same DR steps for the same behaviour and was not only told it was unnecessary but there was precedent for this Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarification, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing_2.

Though there is some evidence that DR was tried: Talk:PayPal#Request_For_Comment:_Criticism_and_PayPalSucks.com only to be rejected by the user when others gave their opinion 2 random people dropping in, each with a single, brief comment, and not really providing Misplaced Pages policy/guideline based reasoning isn't consensus.. He dismisses the only input received from the people responding to his RfC because they did exactly what they should have. Came to the article and gave their opinion as they saw it. There is no requirement that they hang out and debate it endlessly.. Given his past behaviour and the fact that he's dismissing the very DR he initiated, there was no evidence that any further DR would be of benefit here.

In addition CBDunkerson made an attempt to reach out to this individual to explain proper behaviour and proper sources which he promtply ignored as well .

Statement by Crossmr

I encountered this individual on the talk page of Paypal where a debate ensued about proper sources, and external links. During the course of this debate Njyoder engaged in multiple personal attacks and disruptive editing practice. Even to the point where he admits things violate policy but edits them in to the article anyway. There were constant accusations of wikilawyering, lieing, bad faith, etc. The bulk of this can be found at Talk:PayPal#Request_For_Comment:_Criticism_and_PayPalSucks.com and the two or three sections below. Diffs would be numerous from the talk page alone. outside of that there are edit summaries like this and he makes disruptive edits like this where he admits an individual fails the requirements laid out by policy yet edit wars to include the material anyway . he's violated 3RR to push in sources which he admits fail WP:V , and there are several more examples of personal attacks in Talk:IntelliTXT#Ryan_Block_article. This behaviour seems to be a continuation of the previous behaviour he was sanctioned for. Another user tried to point out on his talk page what constituted appropriate sources but he ignored that as well and continued to edit war to include those in the paypal article until it was protected.

Statement by Njyoder

This is an absurd abuse of process. He is trying to use arbcom to rule on a content dispute, he's even arguing it here. He has tried repeatedly to argue hypertechnica, wikilawerying points in line with the essay attached to WPIAR and the bureaucracy section of WP:NOT. Instead of trying something like mediation, an RFC or any form of compromise, he reported the content dispute to AN/I (ironic since he violated 3RR before all of this) and when he didn't get his validation there (someone even explicitly disagreed that my edits are disruptive and he ignored it), he went straight to here. He has tried no other methods of dispute resolution and the arbcom case he lists is completely unrelated to this, both in terms of who is involved (just crossmr and me) and the articles.

On the other hand, I created an RFC for the article (very little participation from that) and tried linking the article from other pages to get people involved. I made an effort to get others involved and didn't resort to administrative action except when he violated 3RR. When I wrote an essay on WP:RS and engaged in polite debate there (a debate that originated in WP:V), he decided to drop in on both of them just to harass me. He started responding to various people who agreed with me just to repeat his original propositions stating that he thought I was wrong--not actually arguing his propositions, only stating them. He also used it to accuse me of soapboxing and POV pushing. I told him to please stop commenting (with the word "please") on the essay if he's not going to debate the matter and then, instead of stopping or admitting error, he commented saying that I was wrong to OWN the article by asking him to please engage in debate on my essay or stop running around accusing me of soapboxing.

I'm fully willing to do mediation or even better, try some other method to get others involved in the debate (instead of a me vs. crossmr) setting, as my other attempts didn't gather many people. Using the notice boards or trying other RFCs may work and possibly other methods I'm not familiar with, as it would be very helpful to get others involved.

My so-called 'disruptive edits' are just me disagreeing with him. I never admitted to violating policy and at best that's hyperbole and a violation of AGF. In fact, I was specifically arguing that even under his logic, one of these points would qualify as an exception to the RS guideline--meaning I disagreed with his interpretation and strict, rigid wikilawyerring requirements regarding policy and guidelines, not that I was deliberately violating them.

-Nathan J. Yoder 05:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll note that consensus by definition requires discussion and discussion isn't making a signle comment and leaving. He knows this. CBD actually stated things disagreeing with crossmr and crossmr ignored this entirely. I acknowledged that CBD disagreed with some of what I said, and I acknowledged this and addressed it to him and crossmr. Crossmr is clearly beind disingenuous and dishonest here and is abusing process to prematurely bring this to trial--It seems now that he reazlies people will reject this as premature, he will dig up any random edits he can find of "dispute resolution"--but dispute resoluton clearly isn't two random people making brief disagreement with me ony one single point and one other person partially disagreeing with me. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Renamed section. We use numeric numbers to indicate cases regarding the same subjects. - Penwhale | 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/1/0)

Liancourt Rocks disputes

Initiated by Wikimachine at 03:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

(There may be more interested, but so far these are the only ones that are active)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Wikimachine

This Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks article has troubled so many over the last 2 years - it needs arbitration. It’s not just one single disagreement or requested move – it’s the subject in its entirety. Unless the arbitration committee draws a clear line over what is POV and what is NPOV, what is acceptable and what is not, what is prescription and what is description, and what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, these POVs will continue to ravage the article with revert wars while hiding behind Misplaced Pages’s procedural & policy-based shields. They make a change on the article that is being discussed about in the talk page, and then when we revert they say we’re reverting against consensus when in fact the change was based on no consensus to begin with & changes require consensus to begin with. And when we (in the latest case it is "I") revert, "they" suddenly multiply from what was 2 editors in dispute to 4 - it's so perfectly coordinated . But the whole situation is us vs. them - no actual thing as consensus (they agree amongst themselves & then say "consensus") l consensus here - it's just a cold war with revert wars & 3RR ban being the leverage. In the end, this is about how many guys you have on your side able to participate in a revert war & 3RR but you've got to run a movie to make it all seem legitimate. (in the last 2 years, they never agreed on anything or never worked out a compromise & the only thing that would force them to was the poll - unless they have a compromise that is just as bad as the original). In fact, the entirety of the Liancourt Rocks talk page & the archives is the evidence that so many other steps throughout the last 2 years have been tried by the both sides. No one is ever satisfied and some main players here don't do anything else other than to edit on the Liancourt Rocks talk page (i.e. Opp2 & Clownface). (See this article to test & see my neutrality) These ppl (JPOV & KPOV) are too lazy or obsessed with their POVish beliefs that they refuse to add but emphasize certain points (for example, the most recent: instead of controlled & claimed, they want "claimed-claimed, and controlled" in the 1st paragraph of intro when these things are plainly explained in the 2nd para of intro & thoroughly covered in the main body - in order to emphasize that the Japanese claim is on equal level as Korean claim over the island & to imply illegitimacy behind Korean control - why would any country claim a territory that it's already controlling?).

The most recent conflict is on the intro - (2 versions advocated here) (rv1rv2 - they take turns reverting, this happened since they made their accounts, see contribs). I never agreed with the proposed introduction from Komdori, LactoseTI, and Phonemonkey & I was never aware of the change on the article that was unilaterally made by Opp2 (notice POV with Japan coming first, S. Korea coming 2nd). All throughout the talk, I disagreed with many things that make up Opp2's version & the fixes thereafter: Moreover, I did not know that there was any change made in the main article: I'm not seeing any changes on history, so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about And then Komdori replies: "A half dozen or so editors worked" - oh yeah the 6 editors listed above - 4 vs 3 -that sure is "worked over" "a lot went into". None of us agreed with anybody else & those 4 LactoseTI, Komdori, Opp2, and Phonemonkey agreed amongst themselves. Komdori says "We don't need your permission." but they do because they have permission from no one else outside their party either.

This article is a very different environment - like Europe, the old alliances are already fixed - there are old timers here who meddle in every dispute (including me). It's not random editors coming in & making edits & contributing to discussions w/ good faith (b/c no other ppl are interested in this dispute except for the nationalists) Everything is fixed & a self-fulfilling prophesy & we're trapped in this framework, & that's why arb is necessary. Whatever we do we're POVs unreasonable nationalists & uncivil (they can make us so). If we go on revert war, we'll be outnumbered. If we continue on talk, we'll be outvoiced & outpolled. Even if they are wrong, it's justified b/c we have to accept all views per NPOV - yet at a closer examination this is not a problem of NPOV but matter of reasonability, reality, and description over prescription. If we accuse them of being unilateral & cheap (this infuriates me) they reply w/ "Wikimachine: why don't we try the other steps first".

2nd dispute: Opp2 wanted to get rid of the word "administer" for S. Korea b/c Japan didn't "administer" in the sense of control but mere paperworks of registering the islets as a province. The way he aimed at this was by searching on google & listing several sites that used "occupy" to describe the situation and the same for "admnister". So, Opp2 says, you must replace all equivalents of "occupy" with "occupy" and "occupy" is the only word you can use b/c it's most neutral b/c Opp2 listed few more websites that use "occupy" rather than "administer". This is Original Research. I want to emphasize that none of our reliable, NPOV, and cooperative editors here - LactoseTI, Komdori, and Phonemonkey attempted to explain to Opp2 that it was original research & actually defended him.

Another is: Last requested move from Dokdo to Liancourt Rocks at first ended in no consensus. However, they lobbied the admin Husond at his talk page & weeded out several early accounts to just reach the % that another admin holding the previous RM defined as consensus & then overturned the decision. This incident bothers me on two levels - first, they failed to weed out a few of their own early accounts, and second, even when I showed the admin that if he were to consider the illegitimate accounts on Liancourt Rocks side there would be no consensus the admin didn't listen.

3rd dispute: 1) about the info box which contains "administration" section showing Japan & South Korea, their respective provincial titles, etc. 2) originally not there, but somebody put it there to show Japan on top of S. Korea b/c of alphabetical order - which I disagree b/c Liancourt Rocks, whether disputed by Japan or not, is a Korean territory). Shows how vicious & vicious they're. In other words, S. Korea controls the island & therefore is the only country with administrative rights over the island (i.e. ~ tax, census, if we were to say that ppl lived there). Japan can "administer" or "register" the island as "Okinoshima Town, Oki District, Shimane" but that's as far as Japan can ever go & the info box doesn't ask for "administer" in the sense of "register". LactoseTI & Phonemonkey say that "control" does not mean "administrative rights" b/c it could be illegitimate. I see how they link "rights" and "legitimacy" but even with illegit occupation a country can "administer" a territory &, even if LactoseTI's saying that Japanese viewpoint is that the occupation is illegitimate, all info box asks for is just that control.

A related problem is that it's JPOVish to present this Japan-Korea dispute with Japan on equal level with Korea. It's just like (made up) Russia disputing Alaska with the US. Sure, both countries are disputants, but who controls the land, who controlled the land before, which side has better historical evidence (in this case, the ev. that the US bought Alaska from Russia) (in Liancourt Rocks, according to Yale Global, Korea) (a better example is Tsushima Island except S. Korea disputes over it) The simple act of disputing doesn't put the disputer on equal level with the disputed. Even if I concede that Dokdo was Japanese to begin with, it is within Korean territory - just like Tsushima is within Japanese territory. It is unrealistic for Japan to try to take Dokdo - all Japan wants currently is a disputed status & therefore equal level of dispute is JPOVish. Misplaced Pages should describe, not prescribe, but here they prescribe a less accepted view as equivalent to the dominant view. It's cheap b/c they use the NPOV policy that all views must be represented as a leeway to emphasize heavily on JPOV. And this also spills over to the current title of the article -it's more JPOV than NPOV (even if slightly) b/c it challenges Korean claim's legitimacy even when Korea controls the island. It's like changing Tsushima Island to something in English just b/c S. Korea disputes it.

Another thing is WP:CIVILITY - sure both sides use exclamation marks & bolds & few "wth" sometimes, but the other party's superior & condescending attitude really bothers all of us here (we don't do this, however). When accused, they reply "stop being paranoiac", "you're mistaken", etc. For example, I reverted the edits on the info box b/c I thought that the order of administration was based on the alphabetical order of the geographical subjects, not the disputants. And in fact, I reverted myself even before anybody replied back in response on talk page (see this. And then something so ridiculous - the other party - (none could boast as many edits or as long stay as me) happened - they all remind of the wikipedia rules! "unfortunately this is not Misplaced Pages policy" "It's from WP:NCGN. WP:NC itself is a Misplaced Pages policy but WP:NCGN is a naming conventions guideline" I even replied "Well, I saw that & I changed it back." But Macgruder goes further, even 1 day after my own revert, "If you have a problem with that page go over there and deal with it. You don't edit to be parallel with another page which itself may be wrong. You edit to be parallel with Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines. Frankly I don't care which way round they are but J does come before K." Oh sure you don't. Then comes the bullseye: "Stop constantly making your argument personal and people might have a modicum of respect for you".

Finally, the other side's action is very well coordinated - almost like a conspiracy & wait, we have evidence. Google, Ginnre's talk page, although link is now modified by the forum, Ginnre's talk page, showing the exact forum discussion, deleted due to copyright In short, there are forum discussions in Japanese outside of Misplaced Pages about Liancourt Rocks - and 2chnet example was a thorough analysis of all KPOV editors on Liancourt Rocks. I can't accuse directly any of them here, but I know that Komdori & LactoseTI are nearby friends and since their first edits they participated & coordinated together in a requested move (see my previous sock accusation data and the previous sock accusation case where I specified 2 links on their first edits . And also their efforts at the previous requested move was very well coordinated & their arguments (made individually & separately) all fit well & were well structured, based on Misplaced Pages's policies (I was really surprised, so I responded to make things clear for everyone at here). (Wikimachine 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Therefore I'd like for the arbitration to accomplish following things:

  • First decide if the last requested move was legitimate, and if the current title is POV or NPOV (b/c ppl are planning another RM in the future) (look at my analysis of the requested move at this archived link.)
  • Second decide if S. Korea & Japan are disputing over the island at equal level or not or if it's a case similar to Tsushima Island.
  • Third specify which version (b/w the 2 reverts) is better & elaborate on additional compromises & specify certain things that are needed to make the article NPOV.

After these things are cleared, it'll be possible for me to work on the article as I am on Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) (which I aim to make a featured article). You can clearly see that I'm quite NPOV & take interest in article development more than anything like emphasis, I love different viewpoints purely b/c they are interesting, and I try to cite everything --> no WP:OR. (Wikimachine 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Statement by LactosTI

Just a comment--this request is really preliminary in nature. Few if any of the dispute resolution steps have been tried recently (in the last few months) and have nothing to do with the issues at hand (the only dispute resolutions tried recently were a few ultimatums by Wikimachine not to undo his revert like this). Wikimachine also explicitly said he was skipping other forms of dispute resolution because of his bad faith for other editors here ("Mediation committee, mediation cabal - they're all meaningless on this one b/c of you Japanese nationalists."). Surely this is a controversial article, so it makes sense that controversy after controversy will crop up as the content develops; still, it's better to work in the framework that is set up (and works!) inside Misplaced Pages rather than jumping here as a first step.
This case also only lists a handful of the many established editors involved recently, excluding users like Gettystein, Endroit, and Kusunose. The editor filing this request stated on the page he basically wishes to skip the other steps since he doesn't care for the obvious consensus. Wikimachine: Why don't we try the other steps first (along with a big dose of good faith), and see how it turns out? The process tends to go a lot smoother that way. —LactoseTI 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I'm totally uninvolved here and have only given the dispute a cursory glance, but based on my experience with similar situations, I'd recommend Arbcom take this case and hand out topic bans liberally on all sides. Asking the parties to engage in further dispute resolution first would be futile here. They've been debating this for years and years, what else would they try now? The article has seen dozens of edits since yesterday alone, most of which were reverts. The most disappointing thing, however, is to look at the talkpage and at the request here, and look at the quality of the debate. These guys have been fighting over those islets for two or three years, and they are still framing their debates in terms of which side is right and which side is wrong! Apparently, people are simply not getting it that this is not what NPOV is all about. If they haven't learned that yet, why would we expect they learn it now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

Just for further information, I just blocked Good friend100 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) indefinitely as this was their seventh block for violating the 3RR rule. My reasoning being that they are clearly unwilling to comply with the basic editing rules that we are all expected to follow. I haven't studied the issue in any detail but there is clearly an ongoing problem. Strange that user RFCs haven't previously been attempted. Obviously, I'd be more then happy to unblock them to allow participation in any arbitration case, or even, if there is a sufficient commitment to behave in future. Spartaz 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/2/0/0)

Violetriga

Initiated by John254 at 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Please see the "Violetriga admonished" remedy of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff.

Statement by John254

In the the "Violetriga admonished" remedy of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff the Arbitration Committee stated that "Violetriga is admonished for undeleting content which was deleted under the BLP policy without going through a full discussion to determine its appropriateness, as outlined above. Any future administrator action that violates the BLP policy will result in her immediate desyopping once it is brought to the attention of the Committee." In blatant violation of the Summary deletion of BLPs principle's requirement that articles deleted citing violations of the biographies of living persons policy "must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so", Violetriga unilaterally undeleted a redirect that was deleted citing WP:BLP concerns, then wheel-warred over the deletion (see ). This alone would constitute grounds for the "immediate desyopping" of Violetriga. However, Violetriga has recently engaged in more administrative misconduct: on August 28, 2007, she blocked Bouncehoper, with whom she was engaged in a massive edit war across many articles, using administrative rollback (see , etc) in violation of the blocking policy, which expressly prohibits administrators from "block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute" and prohibits short "cool down blocks", such as the three minute block Violetriga placed against Bouncehoper. It is high time for Violetriga's extensive administrative misconduct to be addressed. John254 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

Um, edit-warring over sophomore<->second is lame. (although I have to say that second is probably more globally accepted). About the BLP redirect... Violetriga was the person that initially REDIRECTED the name to the new article (although naming the person in the article doesn't exactly help?) - Penwhale | 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved AnonEMouse

Please reject. Dispute resolution has not been tried here. The RFAR admonishment has nothing to do with the lame "sophomore" edit war, and while it's arguably closer to the redirect, that was over a month ago, and no one has discussed it for weeks. --AnonEMouse 16:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved GRBerry

A wheel war involves at least two parties. If the wheel warring is going to be an issue in this case, the other participants need to be brought in as parties also. The log demonstrates one admin that did all of the deletions and an admin other than Violetriga that did a restoration. Either add them both as parties and sanction appropriately or drop the whole issue. I recollect discussions at the time, and they would need to be brought into evidence if anyone can find them. (Some are probably on now deleted pages.) GRBerry 16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AnonEMouse that this case is probably best rejected. Glad he pointed that out while I was typing my first comment. GRBerry 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by slightly involved Melsaran

Violetriga seemed to have gotten another (final) chance after the wheel warring incident with JzG. It was over a month ago, and has since been forgotten. Also, the block of Bouncehoper was (indeed) inappropriate, like I pointed out at an ANI thread, but does not have anything to do with this arbitration case. This arbitration case was about BLP undeletions, not inappropriate blocks. Please reject. Melsaran (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Thatcher131

Personally, I feel that Violetriga has seriously breached the community's trust with regards to her admin access several times, and I wouldn't care at all if she were to be desysopped   however, as the request currently stands, it proposes that Violetriga be desysopped because of the admonition in the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case. An inappropriate block that doesn't have anything to do with BLP does not fall under that remedy. Also, the userbox thing is irrelevant now, because it was more than a year ago and she wasn't sanctioned; let bygones be bygones. The current request is simply not a valid reason for desysopping. Melsaran (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher131

Violetriga wheel-warred over the deletion of Abhilasha_Jeyarajah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . Note that Violetriga's undeletion of this same article on 30 May was part of the evidence in the previous arbitration case. Violetriga also blocked a user with whom he was edit warring. The block was only 3 minutes, "to get his attention" so he would discuss the dispute, but Violetriga should have involved others. In fact, the whole lame edit war could have been handled by involving additional editors to support (if that was the consensus) Violetriga's position. Violetriga also wheel-warred in the userbox case although no action was taken at this time. Does the Committee endorse Violetriga's continued status as an administrator? Thatcher131 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

I urge ArbCom to accept this case to look into all recent administrative conduct by Violetriga. She is a longstanding Wikipedian and has made editorial contributions of high quality but I believe her conduct as an administrator has of late been completely unacceptable and has fallen below basic community norms administrators are expected to adhere to. She wheel warred on two occasions as described by Thatcher above. When I raised concerns about Violetriga's conduct in the second incident her reply was "Wheel-warring is bad, yes, but sometimes you have to do it when an admin is simply wrong and refuses to go along with what has been decided". I do not think that such an attitude is acceptable - if other admins comported themselves in this manner the result would be utterly chaotic. There is rarely any great rush - admins actions we disagree with can be reviewed and should be overturned by consensus, and not because another admin judges them "wrong". This latest inappropriate block by Violetriga is part of an ongoing pattern that shows that Violetriga lacks sound judgment as to when to use her administrative tools. I do not think it appropriate for an editor who believes repeated reversal of actions of other admins can be appropriate and blocks (however shortly) those she is engaged in a dispute with to continue to serve as an administrator. WjBscribe 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Mackensen

The fact that the redirect to Baby 81 was ultimately kept does not excuse the wheel warring or unrepentant defence of that wheel warring. Daniel Brandt was kept per consensus but Geni remained desysoped, and it now no longer exists as a stand-alone article per consensus but Yanksox is still desysoped - the ultimate fate of the subject matter of the wheel war is clearly not that significant. And the incidents are connected in that they all involve poor judgment as to when to use admin tools. The combination of incidents is now developing into a pattern that seriously calls into question Violetriga's competence as administrator. WjBscribe 21:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion had already taken place before that event, it's just that JzG is allowed to get away with half-hearted deletions that ignore what everyone else has agreed. I didn't expect any other comment from you, to be honest, as you seem to have had it in for me for a while now. violet/riga (t) 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

Thatcher puts his finger on it. Not only has Violetriga done something that she was admonished not to do, she has done it in one of the places explicitly discussed at the time, and as the quote cited above by Wjbscribe shows, she is completely unrepentant, explicitly stating that she thinks it's acceptable to wheel war when you think the other person is wrong. Perhaps someone could find an example of a dispute where either party thinks the other side is't wrong? It seems to me that either Violetriga has not taken the admonition to heart, or it was not clear enough, or it requires further clarification, because a lot of us think it was violated and she clearly doesn't.

Consensus never trumps WP:BLP, nor does it permits use of administrative tools to undo another administrator's actions without discussing the matter first. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by violet/riga (t)

I just wrote a load but lost it so I'll be brief. The claimed BLP violation came during the BDJ case before the admonishment decision had even passed (got my dates wrong...). I have responded about the claimed unacceptable block on WP:AN/I - the block worked insofar as it finally got Bouncehoper talking without being a punishment. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Baby 81 covers most of this, I feel, as there was consensus on that talk page to include the name and thus a redirect should be present. I don't think that the undeletion of a redirect to something that explicitly includes the name of said redirect is in any way a BLP violation. This matter was discussed at the time anyway and I fail to see the reason for it being brought up now. violet/riga (t) 13:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Response to Fred Bauder

As stated on Talk:Baby 81 BLP said:

"When the reliable sources used as references for an article about a living person or about an event involving one or more living persons refer to such individuals by name, the article generally can as well."

Myself and several others went along with this policy, so I'm not sure what you are on about. We agreed that the correct interpretation of the BLP policy was to include the name. How can restoring the redirect be a BLP violation when the name itself appears in the article? violet/riga (t) 16:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see, in WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names Fred Bauder 16:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mackensen

With respect to my fellow editors, this feels like a "coat-rack" arbitration request. We're being presented with two entirely dissimilar allegations, one month apart. I don't know anything about the alleged misconduct reported by John254 (talk · contribs), but I see no evidence that prior methods of dispute resolution have been attempted. On the other matter, if this was a serious misconduct issue it should have been raised publicly at the time, not a month later as part of a separate matter. There was considerable discussion on Talk:Baby 81 and elsewhere (which I participated in), and there was grudging consensus that inclusion of the name was not problematic, especially given its frequent mention in reputable news outlets. Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up

This is Tony Sidaway suddenly re-discovering the article and reverting, without discussion, after it had stood, un-edited, for a month. This is a strange way to go about matters. I've reverted him pending an explanation of just what he's playing at. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Thatcher131, JzG, and WJBscribe's statements should not stand alone. The events leading up to this case, and the parts played by previously trustworthy editors, and even two arbitrators, have shocked me deeply. This disgusting and despicable use of an infant's name as a token in the war against the biographies of living persons policy is not consistent with the ideals of Misplaced Pages, to create an encyclopedia. For the first time, I feel thoroughly ashamed on behalf of the entire project. --Tony Sidaway 22:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/1/0)


Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Initiated by Mofb at 11:43, 28 August 2007

regarding

Involved parties

Statement by the subject

The subject is the maker of the request. He and others have repeatedly tried to prevent posting of libelous material in a section entitled "philosophical and/or political views" which has been inserted into his biographical entry. At present, for instance, there is a reference to an article by George Monbiot, but no reference to the strongly-worded correction which the newspaper in question was compelled to print the following day. The subject has contacted the complaints team, and has given warnings that libel proceedings will follow if the libelous material continues to be posted. All attempts to prevent the libels, including a recent but now-withdrawn full protection of the page, have been unsuccessful. Balancing material is repeatedly removed, and hostile material inserted, to create a false, unfair, and detrimental impression of the subject's competence.

To settle this matter, and to prevent future libels, I should be grateful if my biographical entry were deleted altogether from Misplaced Pages. Accurate biographical entries are available in Who's Who, Debrett's People of Today, etc., so the Misplaced Pages entry is not needed. I am mortally ill and do not want my reputation degraded so unfairly at the close of my life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mofb (talk • contribs)

Comment by uninvolved Sam Blacketer

See Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley and its talk page. The reference above to a "strongly-worded correction which the newspaper .. was compelled to print" in fact refers to Christopher Monckton's own reply, which was printed in The Guardian on page 37 on 15 November, 2006; the above gives the incorrect impression that it was a newspaper correction rather than a 'right to reply' which The Guardian did not endorse. The piece was printed in a column called "The Response" which is described by the paper in the following terms: "The Response column offers those who have been written about in the Guardian an opportunity to reply". Sam Blacketer 11:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment by ChrisO

I've been watching this article for some time following its appearance on WP:BLPN and WP:AN/I in June this year. This request for arbitration seems extremely premature and this is fundamentally a content dispute, therefore outwith the remit of the Arbitration Committee. The history of the article has seen an anonymous editor (presumably User:Mofb?) repeatedly adding contentious unsourced material (including a copy-and-paste of an entire newspaper article) and being reverted by other editors. However, the anonymous editor has made no use of dispute resolution, not even using the article's talk page. Nor has he even said which content he considers to be libellous, as far as I know. This lack of discussion or specificity has obviously made it rather difficult for the article's editors to resolve disputes. Arbitration does not seem to me to be the best way to resolve this issue. -- ChrisO 18:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur with JzG and Daniel's comments below. This Guardian article suggests that there's a long-running wrangle between Monckton and Monbiot/The Guardian. It's worth noting that the same individual also appears to have threatened libel proceedings against Misplaced Pages at an earlier date concerning the articles Eternity Puzzle, Peter Tatchell, OutRage! and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Apocalyse Cancelled (now deleted) - all topics relating to Monckton. These were blanked by an editor from 62.136.27.125 on December 6, 2006 and replaced with the (very quickly reverted) message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings". The same IP editor signed himself "M of B" in this deleted edit, so it seems safe to assume that it was the same complainant as in this case. -- ChrisO 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

OTRS ticket is 2007082810012738, for reference. I recommend that arbitrators and other interested parties read the subject's letter, the tone of which may inform the decision and handling of this dispute.

The present content has both Monbiot's article and Monckton's rebuttal, which seems reasonable. There is no suggestion that there are errors of fact within the article, only that the subject disputes statements made by another individual, which we report accurately and with attribution. There is no suggestion that our reporting of the dispute is inaccurate, the subject's issue appears to be with the statements made by a notable individual on a shared field of expertise (or at least a field in which both appear to be considered qualified to comment). Issues of factual accuracy should, of course, be dealt with promptly, and we should show all due courtesy to the subject, while not compromising our editorial independence.

Above all, though, while we are not here to publicise agenda-driven reporting, Misplaced Pages does not exist to fix external disputes. The dispute is between Monckton and Monbiot, with the Guardian as a venue; reporting this controversy does not seem to me to be a violation of policy, and to assert that A is wrong because B says so, rather than to say (as we do) that A says X and B disputes it, would be wrong, I think. It is not a surprise that Monckton does not like what Monbiot says - he does not accept the scientific consensus on global warming, whereas Monbiot is a trenchant critic of the climate change denial industry and a long-time advocate of strong action to reduce carbon emissions. We are not here to fix this problem. As documented criticisms go, a criticism in such terms in a major national newspaper by a widely-quoted authority is, like it or not, a notable criticism.

With those facts in mind, this is not a WP:BLP issue, poses no issue of precedent requiring of ArbCom intervention, and it looks to me as if it can safely be handled as a regular content dispute unless it escalates further. The subject is in contact with OTRS, and volunteers can be trusted to remedy errors of fact promptly.

Statement by Daniel

Suggest this case is rejected by the arbitrators and the Wikimedia Legal team are left to deal with it via OTRS, given the recent queue reclassification for the ticket JzG cites. Daniel 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/3/0/0)

Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

BADSITES / NPA in articles

In #BADSITES above, Mackensen writes, "We're not being asked to write policy; we're being asked to clarify an earlier ruling," to which FloNight responds, "We do not need a new case to make this point," and James F. adds, "the MONGO decision definitely needs re-working." Would it be more appropriate to ask for a clarification here? If so, I so ask the committee to clarify the extent to which WP:NPA applies to articles. ←Ben 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a try:
The No Personal Attacks policy, as it clearly states throughout the page, applies to comments, not to articles.
I'm trying to be succinct to avoid confusion, but I could expand it:
The No Personal Attacks policy applies to comments. It cannot be applied to articles as they are not appropriate venues for comment on Misplaced Pages editors qua editors. External sites and their appropriateness for articles are covered under the Sourcing and Referencing policies.
Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus

As an ArbCom clerk recently noted, "there are no enforceable remedies in that case". Setting aside the question "So what was the point of this entire case?" I would like to ask for clarification of the "Parties reminded" remedy: "All parties are reminded of the need to edit courteously and cooperatively in the future. Failure to do so will be looked upon harshly by the Committee, and may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions against those editors who continue to act inappropriately." What is not clear to me is what are the recommended actions if an editor, named a party in the case (or otherwise familiar with it), is behaving in a manner that I believe violates WP:CIV and related policies and creates a bad atmosphere at discussion pages. Where, if anywhere at all, can I report this, without encouraging the criticism that I am 'forum block shopping'?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to this a request for clarification.
  1. All along I wanted to ask who among the editors are considered among the "parties reminded" to be viewed under the parole of the deferred punishment? Several editors who took part in the ArbCom did not have a single allegation brought against them at the workshop. Are they too on the parole?
  2. Further, several editors alleged the abuse of gaming the WP:CIV as a shortcut in resolving the content disputes to one's favor. Also, along the same lines, is the devious behavior wrapped in a "civil" wrapper considered more WP:CIV compliant than an utterance of a profanity at the talk page?
  3. Also, are the wikipedians allowed to maintain the laundry lists of grievances, black books and other forms of attack pages on en-wiki, other public servers of Wikimedia foundation and in the public areas of internet?
ArbCom did not make its position clear on any of this issues. And those issues are either urgent or already popping up.
I felt from the onset that the clarification on those positions are very much needed but hesitated about starting a request for clarification on that disastrous ArbCom as resurrecting unanswered question could have prompted accusations of "not letting bygones be bygones", "holding grudges", etc. But Piotrus took it upon himself to open the request anyway and since this is going to be studied I would like to add my questions to it. --Irpen 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
To answer Irpen's question based on view of a bystander:
  1. This question would coincide with one of the clarification requests that I wrote below in a way. (See the A-A 2 section below.)
  2. I believe that provoking someone to violate WP:CIV should get you in trouble, since instigators rarely get out of the case scathe-free. However, users shouldn't lose their cool under any circumstances.
  3. About laundry lists, there's only 1 recent case that I, as a clerk, could recall, and that would be Tobias Conradi case. I'm not sure what the norm on this is, though.
- Penwhale | 15:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Remedy

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

Also, under this case, other editors who edit in a similar manner to the previously-sanctioned editors may be placed under the limitations of the original Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Do these sanctions expire one year after the editor in question is notified, or are they indefinite as no time limit is mentioned? The supervised editing remedy from the second case appears to be indefinite, as no expiration is mentioned, so my question is whether this is indeed the case and whether the other remedies are still meant to expire after a year, including on other editors brought in under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 decision. Seraphimblade 06:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe this situation requires attention from the committee. Frankly, I was always troubled by remedy number 1, which took all the users who were placed on revert parole (revert limitation) in the earlier case, and now placed them on supervised editing (which I gather is a new term for some form of probation and/or civility parole) as well. This was done despite the observation that although some of the parties to the earlier case had continued to display problematic behavior, others had done little or nothing wrong since the earlier decision, and there was no real reason to be applying additional remedies to them.
The problem is magnified if, as has been stated, some of the parties to the earlier case were not parties to the newer one. The case was such a sprawl and so many editors were listed as parties (and there was edit-warring over the list for awhile) that the clerk handling the case probably assumed that all the (unbanned) parties to the earlier case had been listed again. (From now on, I will check for things like this in every case myself.) If that didn't happen, then at a minimum anyone who was subjected to a remedy without having been notified of the case should be entitled to have the case reopened and to be heard on this issue. Newyorkbrad 19:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oops. See below.
As far as the duration is concerned, "until the situation improves" is probably a good rule of thumb. I am content to leave the decision up to the enforcing administrators. Kirill 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Replying to NYB, I was also the clerk in the original A-A case. However, this case was opened anew, so I did not add the parties from the old case to the new one. I never assumed that they were listed. - Penwhale | 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, there was no reason to look for the additional parties or add them at the beginning of the case. However, when a remedy showed up on /proposed decision (or originally in an arbitrator proposal on the workshop) applicable to "all the parties to the prior decision," we should all have checked then to make sure that all of them were parties in or had all received notice of the new case. My fault as much as anyone's. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • With due respect to Kirill I think this is a non-issue and his motion is a mistake. Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 provides that any editor who edits disruptively on the topic of "Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" may be placed on civility parole, 1RR and probation by means of a warning on their talk page. The fact that some editors in the first case were not notified of the second case is easily remedied by a note on their talk page. Passing the motion below would take a small group of editors who were placed on 1RR and exempt them from the civility parole and probation that applies to every other editor on Misplaced Pages following an appropriate notice. Thatcher131 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • They could be placed back on the remedy, yes; but only if they edit disruptively. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; staying out of the second case does count for something, I think. Kirill 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Dren. I missed that remedy #2 still applied. Sorry. Thatcher131 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Thatcher, I had to look that word up. Clearly I have some remedial TV watching to do. More seriously, Penwhale, could you advise which users subjected to the remedy in the first case were not parties to the new case? (I ask you instead of doing the research myself as you know which users have complained to you already.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Not so much of "complaining", but TigranTheGreat and ROOB323 were the ones affected. - Penwhale | 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
            • While User:TigranTheGreat was not included in the list of the parties to the second arbcom case, many users provided evidence of his behavior which they considered to be disruptive. So he was definitely a party to the second case, and he was well aware of it as he provided evidence himself. His non-inclusion was just a mistake, because most users considered all the parties to the previous case to be parties to the second one as well. On the other hand, no one complained about ROOB323, so he should be the only one affected. Grandmaster 06:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Just a quick note, since contributors in the 2nd ArbCom case ended up there due to pretty much the same disruptions as those in the 1st case, would not it be simpler to just place everyone on 1RR parole? I think this would significantly reduce the reporting and decision overhead, whether something should be considered a civility violation or not. Thanks. Atabek 14:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Instantnood3

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

The above is the shorthand restrictions placed on Huaiwei after an ArbCom case more than a year ago. Several months ago, it was found that Instantnood was not only being generally disruptive but also running farms of sockpuppets to disrupt votes/discussions and Instantnood is now permanently banned. Huaiwei hasn't been in any other kind of dispute resolution before or since the Instantnood issues.

It's clear to me that while Huaiwei was wrapped up in Instantnood's belligerence (as were a half dozen others on the periphery) it was Instantnood's wiki-stalking of Huaiwei (which continues with sockpuppets even now) that caused the problem, and not a general problem with Huaiwei as an editor. Without the instigation of a bad actor, Huaiwei is an excellent and dedicated Wikipedian who has been with the project for several years. These restrictions and potential punishments hang on him like an albatross.

I'd like ArbCom to review Huaiwei's contributions since the permanent banning of Instantnood and remove the previous restrictions.

SchmuckyTheCat
Right, Huaiwei has one 3rr with one user that is not Instantnood. I think the sequence of that one was, slow revert, Huaiwei realized he went over and reported it, both got blocked. He was also using the talk page to try and work out what was going on with someone belligerent.
One instance does not justify such harsh restrictions. SchmuckyTheCat
Well, that one instance is not the justification, the entire history is. I'd like to see three clean months before I support lifting the restrictions, though. --jpgordon 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


I believe that in a similar situation recently, the committee voted that someone's probation from a prior case would be ended if he remained out of trouble for a specific period of time. That might work here. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: See motion in arbitrator voting section, below. Newyorkbrad 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)


Huaiwei

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: See also the discussion in #Instantnood3 above.

I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point.

As there are presently 10 active Arbitrators, and one who has voted but is now away, a majority is 6.
  • This motion is passed but needs clarification: When does the motion kick in? - Penwhale | 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Confused_clerk++; - Penwhale | 04:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not clear to me that it has passed as yet; Jpgordon is saying that he would vote to lift the probation at the end of September if there are no further problems, but is not voting for the motion as stated. I'm trying not to be overly formalistic here and failing miserably. Assuming no other arbitrators vote, it seems to me we can either let this sit here until October 1, or UninvitedCompany can modify his motion to say "effective October 1 provided that Huaiwai is not blocked before that date," or Uninvited can withdraw the motion for now and renew it in a couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad 18:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Paul August ☎ 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kirill 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. He hasn't received a block since late June. Mackensen (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. I'm willing to lift it at the end of September, barring any problems between now and then. --jpgordon 15:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. First, I would like to see a clean block record for at least 3 months and no evidence of edit warring. FloNight 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, per FloNight. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 13:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Try again in a few months. - SimonP 14:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. As I suggested above, I'd like to see a bit more time. --jpgordon 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Extension of remedies in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Those parties to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan who were not named as parties to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and were not given notice of the proceedings are exempted from the extension of existing remedies imposed by Remedy #1 in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. They remain subject to Remedy #2.

See also discussion above. As there are currently 11 active Arbitrators, the majority is 6.
Support:
  1. We messed up here. Kirill 19:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. There is a defect in noticing everyone in, but the remedy should properly apply to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Abstain:

Archives

Categories: