Misplaced Pages

Newyorkbrad makes an excellent point about ambiguity in policy language and practice regarding community banning. Regardless of whether one calls this situation a wheel war, an alternating series of four actions (two indefs, two unblocks) on an inactive account points to a serious problem suitable for Committee attention. Some of the issues regarding this may require an accompanying community decision at the policy level. Durova 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Physchim62, I read FloNight's comments as procedural rather than prejudicial: any situation that rides the cusp of a wheel war as closely as this one deserves the Committee's attention. As a subordinate note to that, there are precedents for immediate sitebanning in response to well-founded investigation of long term disruption (one example). I did not participate in this ban discussion and have no opinion about whether this particular instance is such a case, but in extreme cases dispute resolution is pointless. Durova 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Strikethrough per Jehochman and Newyorkbrad. Maybe the community can resolve this. Durova 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Not strictly involved, but I did participate a fair amount in the ANI thread that is also linked right at the top of this request. I've also looked at the articles (well, the AfDs) and the edits and the external websites, and would be happy to add evidence to the case. Carcharoth 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Physchim62, I do think that deeper investigation is warranted here. The clean block record and number of contributions mean nothing if there is a previously undetected pattern of consistent and subtle efforts to integrate a set of fringe theories into Misplaced Pages in a misleading way. This reflects poorly on the editors who failed to spot this in the past (though some did raise concerns). Looking back through the contribs, I've discovered that I had met this editor before, and interacted with them in a reasonable manner - I had no cause for concern at that time (see Talk:People known as the father or mother of something and the associated deletion review). Now, looking back through the contributions, I do find cause for concern. I've looked at the first edits of Wavesmikey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and found Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human thermodynamics 2 to add to AfDs mentioned previously. Moving forwards to the present account, I found User:Sadi Carnot/Users, which should also, in my opinion, be cause for concern. I agree with Physchim62 that an indefinite block may have not been the best thing to do immediately, but the minimum would have been a topic ban and opening an RfC or an ArbCom case on the editing behaviour. Apologies for putting links here instead of waiting for any possible case to open, but I wanted to get these notes down now. Carcharoth 22:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I share the concerns that WP:AN and WP:ANI are not suitable for in-depth investigations like this, as they need lengthy discussion (that can overwhelm AN and ANI) rather than snap judgments. Where should such cases be discussed though? And where should the fall-out from this case be discussed - in particular investigating that claims that Sadi Carnot built "a large, elaborate subtle walled garden of pseudoscience", and repairing the damage if this is the case (as it seems to be)? A subpage of the fringe or COI noticeboards, or a subpage of the long-term abuse noticeboard? Carcharoth 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for belabouring the point, but Itub has just pointed to two articles that Sadi Carnot (SC) helped to write. History of quantum mechanics looks fine, but in History of the molecule the good material added may have obscured the references to "human molecules" inserted by SC. Other editors should have picked up on these absurdities, but didn't for over a year. The first appearance is as an external link here on 20 September 2006. The link is as follows: "www.humanthermodynamics.com/Glossary/H.html#anchor_530 "The Human Molecule" - Institute of Human Thermodynamics". Later the same day, the concepts of "Earth molecule" and "Sun molecule" were added to the external links. This remained in the article for over a year, until it was removed here. I'm not focusing on SC's theories here, but rather the way in which his editing style may have contributed to the failure of Misplaced Pages's systems of scrutiny. I can understand why some people think the ban may have been excessive, but they need to recognise the nature of the material Sadi Carnot was adding. Follow the link. Read the website. Carcharoth 10:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Folic_Acid (also uninvolved)

I strongly endorse Durova's statement. To me, this seems a clear case of wheel-warring, and ought not to have happened. I believe that Jehochman is very familiar with Sadi Carnot and his editing tendencies, and had carefully weighed the situation before issuing his ban. He also received a very strong endorsement from the participants of AN/I, backing him up on his ban. Yet, Psychim62 seemed to take it upon himself to reverse that ban. As Durova has said, I think that this case presents a unique opportunity for the ArbCom to create a precedent for dealing with long-term, subtle vandalism, and for dealing with wheel-warring. Respectfully,  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  03:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:TimVickers

I participated in the ANI discussion and supported the ban because I was involved in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. I would recommend ArbCom consider this case to produce guidance on how to deal with long-term, subtle vandalism and users who push fringe theories. Tim Vickers 04:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JWSchmidt

I became aware of the disruptive editing by "Sadi Carnot"/User:Wavesmikey in the middle of the "wheel war" over blocking User:Sadi Carnot. The "wheel war" can be explained as a case of Blind Men and an Elephant. The Misplaced Pages edits of "Sadi Carnot" display a Jekyll and Hyde pattern. "Sadi Carnot" apparently has training in thermodynamics and has appeared to some Wikipedians as a constructive editor of Misplaced Pages pages related to thermodynamics. However, "Sadi Carnot" has also edited (and created) many psychology-related pages that represent a relentless and clever campaign to insert original research and pseudoscience into Misplaced Pages. The community is going to have to be on guard for new attempts by Sadi Carnot/Wavesmikey to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Much work remains to root out all the disruptive edits. One group of administrators knew and responded to the "Dr. Jekyll" aspect of "Sadi Carnot" while a second group knew and responded to the "Mr. Hyde" aspect of "Sadi Carnot". Rather than focus on the fact that there was a meaningless "wheel war", I think the Misplaced Pages community needs to think carefully about how to attract, nurture and empower editors who have expert knowledge. This is the only way to protect Misplaced Pages from disruptive editors such as "Sadi Carnot" who daily pervert Misplaced Pages for their own purposes. --JWSchmidt 06:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Newyorkbrad

With regard to the user conduct issues involving Sadi Carnot, it is clear that if he returns there would need to be, at a bare minimum, substantial restrictions on his editing, and a good argument has been made for a ban. The only question is whether the case should be accepted even though the user is not currently editing. Given that this user has edited under other names before, it may be reasonable to take up the matter now, rather than defer the discussion until he tries to return or until a sockpuppet/alternate account is detected.

With regard to administrator conduct, some of the conflicting admin actions and resulting tension in this and some similar situations may have arisen from a continuing unclarity in an aspect of block/ban policy, including how it has been interpreted in case selection decisions by this committee. Sometimes we say that a community ban exists when no administrator would unblock a user; other times we say there is a community ban when there is consensus for a ban and very few administrators would unblock. When a banned user appeals to ArbCom, it sometimes is correctly observed that there is no real dispute to arbitrate if no admin has been willing to unblock the user. That being the case, an administrator who opposes a community ban, even while recognizing that there is consensus for a long-term block and that consensus should generally be respected, may feel constrained to unblock in order to prevent the block from ripening into a ban or in order to safeguard the user's ability to challenge the ban by appeal to the arbitrators. Indeed, such an admin may reason that unblocking is the only way to achieve these results. Neither that admin nor one who reimposes a block supported by overwhelming consensus is wilfully "wheel-warring"; nonetheless, an undesirable situation is created. Perhaps clarification by the committee would be helpful on this issue. Newyorkbrad 10:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Itub

I was also involved in some of the AfD and AN/I discussions. I agree with much of what Durova and JWSchmidt say. I think that the block itself may be a moot point, since Sadi Carnot has not shown any inclination to return. However, I think it is worth discussing what should be done when an editor has a "Dr. Jekyl" and a "Mr. Hyde" aspect; and specifically whether it is appropriate to block/ban him indefinitely without an explicit warning due to his "Mr. Hyde" activities. --Itub 11:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To all who still refuse to believe that Sadi Carnot made good contributions: there are four regular participants of WikiProject Chemistry (two of them admins and all of us with some expertise in the topic, if I may say so) who have said that he did make good and substantial contributions in this area. I posted two specific examples of articles largely written by Sadi Carnot during the AN/I discussion, but no one seemed to notice, or at least to object: . I'm sure I can find many more examples, but I'll save that for the evidence phase if this case reaches arbitration. --Itub 08:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Iridescent

I haven't the knowledge of psychology to determine whether Sadi Carnot's psychology-related contributions are valid (and have to defer to what seems to be an overwhelming consensus that they aren't). However, I do feel I ought to mention, as some others do above, that SC has a lot of definite valid edits. As a new editor, when I was getting bogged down on my first largish-scale project, the thankless (and ultimately abandoned) task of merging & cleaning up the spammy OR-riddled mess of Rating sites, Rate-me site and Hot or Not, it was SC who patiently explained what I was doing right and wrong, offered suggestions and comments and helped to rewrite the article into what was briefly an informative & sourced article, until the spammers & POV-pushers dragged it back down. If it's only the psychology-related material that's causing a problem I'd far rather see a topic ban then a complete ban, providing he hasn't left altogether. — iridescent 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Physchim62

I am delighted that so many editors have chose to comment on this case. I can only hope that all participants have read The Crucible by Arthur Miller, a great description of how mass hysteria can develop among otherwise reasonable people. To say that someone is a victim of mass hysteria is to say that they are a victim, it does not imply a value judgement.

I cannot answer all the issues raised by my colleagues without breaching the brevity guidelines for this page. I would just like to underline three points.

1. The disputed block is an indefinite block without warning of an editor who has contributed for nearly two years, who had a clean block record and 8537 contributions.
2. The reasons given for the original block are demonstrably false. Jehochman did not make the necessary verifications before taking such a drastic action. As has been admitted, there was no urgency to block as the account is currently inactive.
3. Banning policy, as it stands, allows any admin to veto a Community Ban. As such, there was no reason for Sarah to reinstate the groundless block. Her comments indicate that she had not correctly read the ANI discussion, let alone the underlying evidence. The contention that the few people who commented on ANI somehow represent the "community" is without basis. I might add that the "consensus" on ANI was nowhere near as clear as has been suggested.

It is my honest and deeply held opinion that Sadi Carnot is being persecuted not for what he did but for what he believes. I certainly don't subscribe to his beliefs, but he has an inalienable right to hold them. You will never be able to count on me to form part of a Thought Police.

Allow me end by apologising for the harsh terms which I use. I would not use them but for the seriousness of the situation. I've already had to warn one user that his actions relating to this dispute amount to disruption of Misplaced Pages: maybe more cases will come to light. I really believe that you're all going mad, and that it's not your fault. Physchim62 (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To reply to those users who have said that my actions and those of Dragonfly6-7 are "frustrating the community", I would remind them that the community has abolished the Community sanctions noticeboard, in a MfD debate which attracted far more contributions than the discussion on Sadi Carnot's conduct. I cannot believe that it was the intention of the community that the failings of CSN should be repeated on ANI, and it is surely "frustrating the community" to act as if that were the case. Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To give participants some idea of what is the Community, a few statistics (thanks to uninvolved Gmaxwell):

• one million unique IPs edited English Misplaced Pages in September 2007
• our current best estimate for the number of readers is around 200 million (the exact figure depends on how you do the estimate, obviously)
• Wikimedia Foundation projects currently receive 7 billion pages views per month.

The Community is not a dozen users on ANI, at least two of whom were acting in astounding (and in my eyes culpable) bad faith, something which the blocking admins should have detected and taken into account. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On FloNight's comments

I find FloNight's comments on accepting this case quite frankly offensive. It is common knowledge that the present ArbCom cannot cope with its current case load. This is why administrators work day and night to try to avoid bringing cases here.

ArbCom cases are WikiTorture for all involved. I have always considered this to be a Good Thing (I have a sneaking suspicion that it's deliberate) as it encourages users to take the other forms of DR seriously. If ArbCom wishes more cases to come here, the ball is in its court, but it will have to resolve those cases more quickly, not, for example, leaving cases langering in the voting stage for over a month as has been happening recently. It should remember that taking more cases is inconsistent with encouraging the use of other forms of DR.

FloNight's comments are also remarkably prejudicial. Does she think that administrators are some kind of playground bully, that we go around picking fights for the fun of it and, when we can't find any other poor user to pick on, we fight among ourselves? What ever my criticisms (and I have many) of the actions of Jehochman and Sarah, I do think they were trying to resolve a dispute, not to create one.

If FloNight feels unable to withdraw her comments, she should recuse herself from this case. Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Statements by Physchim62 (Keith Henson)

Physchim62 writes:

"It is my honest and deeply held opinion that Sadi Carnot is being persecuted not for what he did but for what he believes."

Physchim62 is *indirectly* correct here in that Sadi's beliefs probably led to what he did (assuming he is not one of the most elaborate trolls on record). Few people doubt that radical Islamics believe the evil West must be destroyed. It's their *actions* that lead to persecution. The same can be said in this case. He stuffed Misplaced Pages with misleading information. That alone would not have generated such a backlash. Where people got really ticked off is that he had done it for two years before it came to light.

"I certainly don't subscribe to his beliefs, but he has an inalienable right to hold them. You will never be able to count on me to form part of a Thought Police."

Nobody has called for an attack on Sadi/Libb's web site of unmitigated pseudo science. You can hold any crackpot belief you want. But trying to make them part of Misplaced Pages *should* get you booted out.

snip

Physchim62 also wrote:

"The Community is not a dozen users on ANI, at least two of whom were acting in astounding (and in my eyes culpable) bad faith, something which the blocking admins should have detected and taken into account."

The dozen users on ANI were the section of the community who researched the situation. There is no doubt the overwhelming majority of them supported a ban. I suspect they would have supported far worse if something more drastic had been available. What Sadi did strikes right into the heart of the project.

Understanding human psychology as I do, I hold no ill will toward you, but I wish you would comment on these two versions of an article Sadi edited.

Compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=47854434

with

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=125688241

As I mentioned, the EP concept of capture-bonding isn't abnormal psychology, indeed, nothing could be a more normal response in the human EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptiveness) to being captured than to socially reorient to your captors. But just considering the style, which of these two articles would be more useful (and readable) to someone trying to find out about the topic?

As I said Oct 22, I will accept your judgment.

Keith Henson 18:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

For the record, I studied The Crucible with Good Night, and Good Luck this year as a paired text, and scored well in my comparative essay. Now I need to replicate it in my final exams - yay for me. Now, onto relevant stuff...

I am glad that no user has acted more than once - it's a whole new kettle of fish then. However, like Newyorkbrad, I share concerns about the definition of a ban. A ban is any block (on an established or disruptive editor; not vandalism) that will not be overturned by any administrator. A ban is also a consensus of Wikipedians wanting a user to be banned, hence 'community ban'. Is one administrator able to overrule a consensus using the first definition? Is a consensus able to overrule a small subset of administrators? Do these definitions have equal weight? If they do, how many administrators are needed to make their presence more notable than the consensus (and hence unban)?

I'm as confused as you. The Arbitration Committee is not a deconfusion machine, but it does provide sound advice. It also provides resolutions to issues, and the community needs both here. Daniel 10:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Observations by uninvolved FT2

Detailed observations, fact-find, and diffs:

Detail and diffs.

The issue seems to revolve around an editor who may (?or may not) make valuable contributions, but engages in highly undesirable conduct centering around widescale and long term COI-SPAM-WEIGHT-OR on his book and fringe views. The motive for block/ban seems to be use of puppetry and "very serious" sneaky spamming. There seems consensus that COI spamming was going on a long time on many articles, and repeated breach of WP:WEIGHT had been occurring on fringe ideas. An alternative view is that even if he isn't doing it deliberately, then his edits are still too big a liability. On the other hand, there's a counter-concern that he may be a productive editor with a number of good edits (though others dispute this), and that the evidence of sockpuppetry and "disruption only" account use backing this view is minimal to zero. The matter was brought to ANI by Coren, a quite capable editor, specifically because although he felt there was a serious problem, he wanted to check with others rather than assume. This is to be highly commended. He also makes other good points, including that an editor who has a history of seeing that his editing style is causing problems, but simply moves elsewhere and repeats, may well be acting in good faith, but this is still disruptive. Editors are expected to get a clue if told "X isn't okay". Failure to do so, whether innocent or deliberate, is still - ultimately - damaging (WP:POINT#Refusal to 'get the point' has included this for a while now). The first admin to block states, "I am going to indef the account because it's clear to me that it's been used primarily for long term, subtle vandalism and COI editing, causing serious, widespread damage". The block was reverted with the unblocker acknowledging this was "unusual", to allow the user to comment and without condoning the actions. After reinstatement (no wheel war) and rereversal, arbitration was proposed. My questions: Is there good evidence backing the various concerns raised by people? -- evidence presented does not back up all the claims Are his good contribs really good? (Be aware that many sneaky vandals do also make good contribs) -- Asserted both ways Were sufficient clear/formal warnings, discussion, and other DR steps followed to no avail? -- appears not I suspect that 80% of the problem is that the ANI discussion rapidly escalated and polarized to the stronger measures (blocks/unblocks/bans/arb) before considering in a balanced manner the evidence and other options. I am willing to be corrected if I am unaware of any warnings given but..... evidence and diffs: The first block of this incident cites an article (Human chemistry, now afd'ed) that was created by the editor. AFD Views varied from "excellent example of gaming the system/fraudulent promotion of dreck/misleading cites" , "out-and-out fraud/how can we trust him after this/support a ban" , but most simply noted it was self-promotion and OR, and needed removing, and ultimately the creator asked for it to be SPEEDYed . (Its unclear whether to AGF on this request or see it as part of a game. Probably AGF.) The block explanation points to this afd and describes it as a "hoax" being "unmasked", and describes the editor as using the account "primarily for long term, subtle vandalism". Looking at the many AFD comments though, I don't completely agree with this rather strongly worded description/characterization. On checking, there are no visible talk page warnings, and there was no real ANI discussion whether mentoring and such (or a topic/self-promo ban, or formal final warnings) might be more the way to go if he was making bad edits. The indef block is (correctly) presented in terms of gaining a change in behavior, but following the presentation of a list of spam links elsewhere and alleged sock use, it is then presented again, in terms encouraging a ban discussion. The difficulty is, it later emerges those links may not have been the editor's work , and the other account had not edited since December 2005 - a period of almost 2 years (except 3 user page edits in March). The new account and old account did not co-edit (old abandoned Dec 15 2005, new created Dec 27 2005). No diffs showing actual "vandalism" or non-trivial puppetry are given, and if his old account was ever sanctioned that's not listed either. But by the time someone had thought to check the basics of the case, there was already dispute over the indef block, and momentum for a block and possible community ban, and that momentum was based in large part on these beliefs. I have also reviewed the user's talk page back to March. There are no formal warnings, nor indeed any admin warnings on it beyond free image issues and routine AFD notices and one or two requests for references . The user is generally civil, and does not seem to have attracted many negative posts by others. Two minor bites in 6 months are visible, neither major, and even then reconciliation on one of them was jointly offered and accepted quite quickly by the user and the other party. Going back to February, on one occasion an experienced editor posted a statement of concern over WP:OR and failure to understand what Misplaced Pages is about. The user has had a previous article Human thermodynamics afd'ed in 2005 under his old account, similar to the Human chemistry afd. Comments at AFD are not formal warnings, but concerns on OR and the like were expressed (albeit 2 years ago now). There was no visible warning; if anything major has happened from then to now, it doesn't show very visibly on his talk page. Blocks, as well as unblocks, can be enacted by any sole administrator. But admins are expected to balance the evidence as well as how consensus on the Right Thing might stand. In that context, I think what can be said is, some people were hasty to jump to the end-point, others felt this jumping to a conclusion was wrong and/or poorly evidenced, and reverted. That seems to be how it ends up at Arbcom. Thoughts: There was clearly a genuine case for concern. It's still possible or even probable that the editor is/was engaged in deliberate improper COI-OR-SPAM-WEIGHT (or wilful refusal to get the point, same thing). But despite concerns, the fact remains there are all but zero warnings or expressions of concern in the last many months, on his talk page, and no formal notices visible. At ANI, the evidence was very limited. The diffs showed the admission of COI and use of own site as source. Actual evidence of the "meat" of the case was not presented, actual diffs were not provided showing prior warnings or backing the more serious claims, and WP:AGF was not given over his username change ('Wavesmikey' till Dec 15 2005, 'SC' from December 27 2005). These would have helped either inform consensus or highlight mistakes. They were mostly absent. It clearly also wouldn't have hurt to let discussion progress a while longer, or examine the evidence a bit more carefully and check for consensus, before taking major action (block or unblock) as the initiator had requested and repeatedly made clear. In this case remedy (by a few editors) predated fact-finding and evidence, leading to dispute over that remedy (by a different few editors). If there is ongoing problem conduct and despite clear warning the editor had not desisted, indef blocks are a legitimate way to inhibit damage to the wiki until agreement to change is obtained. But in this case, the escalation and unblock/reblock, was unnecessary and reflects poorly. There were better ways to handle it at that time. There was not the kind of divisiveness in this case that we saw in really serious divides; this was a simple case (even with the block/unblock) that admins well might have resolved with discussion and evidence, on ANI. A few administrators were somewhat hasty one way, then a few reversed it as poor judgement, and momentum quickly built up. Perhaps a ban would have emerged anyway. But probably not. In general it's desirable that editors and admins figure out such matters, as Coren had sought, and only pass to arbcom where it really is major, or cannot be resolved otherwise. At least some of the main involved editors, including the initiator and the initial blocker and proposer of a ban, reach agreement that the content issue is largely addressed, and that the next step is either 1/ mentorship and change on the SPAM-COI-OR issues, or (if not) then 2/ a ban due to the problems caused, which is a reasonable resolution. Arbitration is seen as less likely to be needed. Even if the editor does not change or is terminally problematic, this solution would seen to be workable and well within admin handling. A further comment just before arbitration is proposed notes that to date there has still been no formal warning, explaination, or request to stop.

In summary, I'm inclined towards not needing arb attention yet. Based on evidence presented and a careful check of readily identifiable background pages, it seems that although there is a clear fringe-pushing problem, most of the serious issues are over-stated or can now be readily discussed calmly or appropriate handling agreed. The actual problem is COI, and prolific pushing of own links, and own fringe views/OR, which he knows is not permitted but is doing anyway. He also may or may not make valid contriubutions. Problems that led to this arb case included:

Warnings and DR processes were non-existant or inadequate, multiple requests for careful consideration by Coren were not fully considered, evidence of DIFFs and other fact finding which might have informed admin consensus was incomplete, allegations were made that don't seem well supported when checked, AGF was not fully considered by all, in areas such as account change (which clearly was not a problem given 2 minutes checking), the matter seems exaggerated from COI/pushing to "major sneaky vandal", the focus moved to actions (and disputes over actions) way ahead of clear fact finding, and then when the user was blocked/unblocked and this was repeated, the case was escalated here at a point where agreement actually seemed accessible. The user has still apparently not been warned in any of this ("they should have got a clue" doesn't quite substitute for warnings and DR). Way too hasty.

There was also no admin mis-conduct. Nobody wheeled; the active parties all expressedly agreed not to wheel. Now the facts are better identified, and with better evidence, it probably could be resolved by usual admin discussion, and at least one good try at it, would probably be preferable to see if admins can now resolve this themselves. Perhaps given that some of the more serious concerns (puppetry + subtle vandalism) are questionable but others (coi + trust) are valid, a final and formal warning notice on specific kinds of edits or a topic ban would be a better way to keep the good (if any, and if willing) and avoid the bad. The reason this case is divisive is not because of the editor nor the complexity; it's because there is a division whether or not some token DR or warning is appropriate before a ban attempt is made, and questions over some of the allegations with which this editor is being labelled.

In my view, an arbcom hearing isn't needed; there are at least four very well tried classic fixes for this situation that I'm sure admins could agree upon: 1/ We warn him formally about COI-SPAM-MISCITE-OR and if he breaches he is blocked on an escalating basis; 2/ he is indef blocked because of repeated COI-SPAM-MISCITE-OR, and unblocked if he agrees not to repeat; 3/ Mentorship and a ban if he cannot or will not succeed; or 4/ the community agrees a topic ban on certain matters and notifies him he will be significantly blocked on breach.

The real issue here seems to be not Sadi Carnot, who doesn't seem to need arb attention, or the block/ban processes, or even admin conduct (all admins restrained once it became obvious there was a real disagreement). The only reason this escalated in any case was sub-optimal rushed handling of a (when all said and done) fairly routine COI link pusher and fringe theorist, not blockban process failure or wheeling or great complexity... and that's primarily to discuss and learn from. FT2 14:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved GRBerry

My read of the AN/I discussion is similar to that of the prior poster - there was no consensus to support an indefinite block at any point in the discussion, and the final consensus was for mentoring should the user return. I also note that this is very much the sort of stupidity that I expected when we closed CSN - AN/I is a worse forum for these discussions than CSN was, because AN/I is expressly dedicated to snap judgment issues, not deliberative discussion. I strongly urge the Arbcomm to either reject the case, or take it only to firmly slap down the admin who gave the way too hasty block and the admin who reinstated it. (Wheel warring never begins before an administrative action is repeated; the current nutshell of Misplaced Pages:Wheel war is "All administrative actions are subject to a one-revert rule.") Flonight is completely wrong, the problem is not administrators unblocking. GRBerry 18:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (last sentence struck after her clarification GRBerry 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

Statement by hkhenson (Keith Henson)

Having tangled with Sadi Carnot (who was backed up by Physchim62) over capture-bonding I am an involved party. Still, I think what provoked this request is a unique situation and people should not draw too much significance from it. Because Sadi quit editing before being blocked it perhaps wasn't even necessary. None the less I believe the ban with or without warning by Jehochman was fully justified based on a rare (if not unique) pattern of widespread damage to Misplaced Pages that had been turned up by a serious group investigation effort.

As others have pointed out, Sadi was very good at gaming Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians. I have looked at a number of his edits and the pattern was to make the material longer, less clear and stuffed with BS. *Referenced* BS of course. Human nature is such that some people get really upset when they find they have been gamed. Others defend and make excuses for the gamer. There is one awesome example where former leaders of a defunct group have never accepted (in spite of overwhelming evidence) that a highly trusted employee was in the pay of an organization I am not currently permitted to mention.

I don't think the ban/unban ping pong is as important as detecting and stopping the damage such gamers can do to the project. Unfortunately, I don't yet have any good suggestions. Possibly recognized experts could be recruited to judge content wars, but it would take an *army* of them. Keith Henson 06:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Newyorkbrad raising a question of possible mootness

A comment has been added above that the original blocking administrator and the admin who first unblocked have agreed that Sadi Carnot will remain unblocked, but that if he returns (which he very well may not), he will be closely mentored and will be blocked if he creates further problems. I have not seen any disagreement expressed with this solution. There also is useful discussion going on at the policy pages concerning clarification of the banning policy which could ameliorate future disputes of this nature.

Under the circumstances, and consistent with the comments by Jehochman as the filing party, I am not sure that there is a case here any longer. Newyorkbrad 14:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by Physchim62 regarding mootness

The "solution" to which Newyorkbrad refers to below can be found here. It was intended as an interim solution until such time this case could be resolved by other means. I cannot see how admins should be lectured on why they should bring cases to ArbCom, only for ArbCom not to hear those cases because the same admins have agreed to wait for more discussion (ie, that the evidence is presented in full here). It has been pointed out by Newyorkbrad himself that current banning policy is inconsistent, indeed that ArbCom policy on this matter is itself inconsistent. I would remind members of this Committee that their decisions are enforced by administrator and community action: if they lose the confidence either of administrators (as a group) or of the Community as a whole they will have succeded in destroying a useful tool on Misplaced Pages. Physchim62 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement by KWW regarding mootness

I think that letting such an acrimonious issue drop without arbitration would be a shame. I've registered objections to the proposed solution (that Physchim62 should not be permitted to mentor Sadi), which Jehochman has dismissed as a "detail." We need a definite, concrete solution which allows us to prevent Misplaced Pages from being corrupted by pseudoscientists and frauds. We need to make it clear to the admins that unblock pseudoscientists and frauds that such actions are unacceptable. I don't think the proposed solution accomplishes either of those goals.Kww 13:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Accept. Kirill 00:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Reject, per Newyorkbrad. Kirill 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. At first glance the problem seems to be administrators unblocking an editor, that one or more administrators believe is so disruptive to require a indef block, without attempting to achieve consensus on the matter. IMO, the Arbitration Committee was formed to settle exactly this type of dispute instead of administrators over riding each other with their extra tool. In the future, if there is disagreement about a block, please bring it to the Arbitration Committee to be sorted out instead of using your tools in a manner that is controversial. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The point I intended to make (and evidently is not clear) is that using your admin tools in a contentious manner needs to be avoided...whether it is blocking or unblocking. If there is substantial disagreement among administrators about whether an user should get an indefinite block or not, as there is in this case, it needs to be brought to the Committee where evidence is presented by all interested parties and a final decision that is going to stick can be reached. Using your administrative tools to block or unblock to make your views known is not the best way to handle the situation. It is confusing to users to see different admin interpret policy differently and use their tools in conflicting ways to supposedly enforce policy. After a case is accepted, we can take motions to lift a block if an user is blocked at the start of a case. If contacted by directly by an editor often we do it without a motion. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Charles Matthews 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Reject, per Brad. James F. (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

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

Regarding Robert Prechter remedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Smallbones 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan2 remedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question from Zeq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Zeq is in denial over what I've pointed out in Almost uninvolved editor part II above, which makes his behavior even more worrying. He's not been quoting "the Shaw report", he's quoting the minutes of the seventeenth session of the "Permanent Mandate Commission". He seems to be quoting the evidence of one of the witnesses to this PMC, refering to evidence (the witness himself?) presented to the Shaw Report (or may not have been, it's not actually possible to say) - but Zeq has entered it into the article as if it it was the conclusion of the Shaw report.

With citations (followed by denial) this reckless, it must be questionable whether he can contribute usefully to any articles on Israel/Palestine. (He's also provided nothing to refute my Almost uninvolved editor above - I am open to correction on my UserPage if I've got the wrong end of the stick). PR 17:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding the MONGO case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for clarification regarding the Attack sites decision

Moved to the talk page for further discussion. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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