Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 30 March 2008

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

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:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Current requests

Strider12

Initiated by MastCell  at 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Strider12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Abortion and mental health and Talk:David Reardon (mostly archived)
• Content RfC which addressed many of the behavioral issues
• Intervention by another user to try to find common ground
• First AN/I thread
• Second AN/I thread
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Strider12, opened >1 month ago and no longer gathering input

Statement by MastCell

Briefly, Strider12 (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account dedicated to advocating a specific POV on abortion and mental health. Her editing has been disruptive, tendentious, marked by canvassing and gamesmanship, and consistently directed at using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to advance a single point of view: that abortion is psychologically harmful to women. This is a notable point of view, but Strider12's edits have focused enitrely on promoting this particular view rather than presenting it in a neutral fashion. Specifics are detailed in the AN/I threads and RfC linked above.

Six months of gentle and direct feedback through the dispute resolution ladder have not had any effect. Her RfC drew some uninvolved input (as well as input from editors canvassed by Strider12 , , ) Unfortunately, there has been no change in Strider12's behavior; most recently, she has taken to inserting the same disputed edit every few days, without discussion or requests for outside input (, , , , , ). I think this is a straightforward case of a tendentious single-purpose account using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox and a venue for advocacy. (I also have COI concerns, but these are largely extraneous given the behavioral issues). Lesser means of dispute resolution over the past 6 months have failed, and I would ask ArbCom to review the situation with an eye toward making these articles editable again. MastCell  22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Brief response to Strider12: Accusing me of a pattern of "heavyhanded attempts to silence editors who bring forth reliable evidence that MastCell would like to keep out of these articles" is baseless. I've been editing controversial articles since mid-2006. There are many editors with whom I disagree on Misplaced Pages. This is the first user-conduct RfC, and the first Arbitration request, I can remember ever filing. Both are long overdue. MastCell  20:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Strider12

It is unclear why MastCell insists that I am at fault when it is she who has repeatedly deleted well sourced, verifiable material. Her complaint is not that I delete well source material (even if I dislike it), because I never do. She only complains that I keep trying to insert material that she doesn't trust...even though it is reliably sourced to peer reviewed studies.

MastCell has refused to ever grant any good faith to my edits and instead has a history of inserting name calling characterizations against me, even in other forums. For example, when I tried to get outside opinions on policy with this postingScientific Studies As Reliable Secondary Sources in which I carefully avoided any mention of the subject matter or editors involved, MastCell, who was apparantly wikistalking me, showed up and the first word's out of her mouth included ad hominum attacks against me describing me as a "a single-purpose tendentious agenda account and designed to benefit her in a specific content dispute." Such name calling and characterizations, which appear in at least half of all her edits on these pages, do not contribute to collaboration. While I have become defensive in the face of such constant attacks, can anyone blame me?

I am a "single issue" account because (a) I prefer to edit in an area where my expertise gives me plenty of reliable and verifiable materials to contribute, and (b) because in the face of relentless deletion of reliable material it takes a long time to bring controversial articles into balance. I haven't had time to contribute to other articles! But my efforts to bring balance to these articles can be seen by comparing the differences between this version of abortion and mental health before I began to edit it and my latest edit here. I believe it is evident to any unbiased reader that the newer version is more balanced. But it has not been easy to get ANY balance into the article in the face of strident attempts of some editors to delete reliable material.

MastCell has been especially critical of my attempts to point to ArbCom rulings reminding editors that deletion of NPOV stated reliable material is disruptive. She also consistently ignores my requests for evidence that the WEIGHT of the article should be so strongly tilted against the weight of studies and expert opinions that I have cited.

This complaint was most recently triggered after I made a number of edits to several sections and inserted the quote of an expert, Fogel, cited in The Washington Post. MastCell reverted all the edits complaining about the Fogel quote which she had previously deleted without adequate cause. Only MastCell complained about the Fogel quote and I responded and gave strong reasons for it's inclusion as reliable material. I waited a good long time for other editors to comment. As no other editor supported MastCell's complaint, it seemed evident that there was NO CONSENSUS supporting deletion of this reliable material, so I reinserted it and added additional clarifications in the hope they would satisfy MastCell's concerns about context. But within an hour of posting, MastCell had deleted it (and a bunch of other edits to other sections)accusing me of "making zero attempts to gain consensus." The talk page reveals I spent a great effort to explain the source, context, and relevence of the material. This talk page shows ONLY MastCell objected to the Fogel...with very weak reasoning. But MastCell seems to believe that she, and she alone, represents the "consensus" whose support must be obtained before including reliably sourced, pertinent material.

To quote one editor:

Maybe I'm too new to all this to understand fully, but it does appear to me that any effort made by Strider 12 to add information is immediately reverted by one of a small group of editors. As for Strider being identified as 'one' editor 'on the other side', I'm sure that silence by editors who continue to watch this page, should not be interpreted as an indication of agreement to Strider's contributions being reverted. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishiehelper is right. Immediate deletions of material do not provide the basis for collaboration and the failure of other editors to chime in does not mean they approve of deleting reliable material.

Any article regarding abortion is contentious. Most editors generally lean one way or the other. It seems to me that I should not be "forbidden" from contribting reliable and verifiable information just because one or more editors who exclusively on "one side" of the issue complain that my contributions disrupt the WEIGHT of the article as they want to see it slanted. In the absence of some decision to be made that MastCell or some other single editor is the editor-in-chief, I have assumed that the lack of support for deleting reliably supported material regarding Fogel is sufficient reason to replace it.

The simple fact is that I have made repeated attempts to develop consensus around respecting established policy regarding respect for peer reviewed materials and for clarification of the fact that the presumed WEIGHT misrepresented a great number of sources and experts and have repeatedly asked (and never had answered) sources verifying the disproportionate WEIGHT of the article.

• • Reliable Sources -- Wikipeida Policy re Reardon Studies,
  • Two Kinds of Evidence Define WEIGHT
  • Proposed Editing Policy to Avoid Edit Warring
  • Do Not Cause Disruption by Deleting Verifiable Information
  • Should Not Be An Excuse to Blank Verifiable Material
  • Orderly edits

Despite all the hostility and name calling and characterizations of me as a "tendentious editor", I have tried to minimize returning in kind. (I was rather hostile in my response to continued blanking of my material during the first few months, but have been bending over backwards since the beginning of the year to avoid adding fuel to the fire.)

Finally I will note that MastCell has a history of trying to block editors who dare to bring forward issues with which she disagrees. See for example her complaint against Ferrylodge which was triggered by his bringing forth information about the Koop hearings on a talk page. Because it turned out to actually be quite valuable information, but undermined MastCell's arguments for maintaining a misattribution of a statement to the wrong party, she is now going after Ferrylodge for even daring to be involved in the talk page.

In short, it unfortunatley appears that both this and the Ferrylodge complaint are heavyhanded attempts to silence editors who bring forth reliable evidence that MastCell would like to keep out of these articles about which she appears to have deeply vested feelings and beliefs. Instead of working with me to be sure that ALL relevent material is included in the article, MastCell is going to an extreme length to block me from being able to contribute material from reliable, verifiable, peer reviewed sources which conflict with the 1990 APA statement and a 1992 commentary on which she argues the WEIGHT of opinion should rest.

If ArbCom is going to get involved, I would welcome a reaffirmation of the ruling that "It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.". It is the deletion of material that is causing the disruption and edit warring in this article. As I have repeatedly stated, I am quite open to other editors condensing, moving, or adding additional balancing material from the same or other sources. But the relentless, trigger finger deletion of reliable material that does not conform to a "preferred slant" or weakly claimed "WEIGHT" is unproductive and disruptive.--Strider12 (talk) 05:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I have asked Strider12 to reduce his statement by a sizable amount, given it currently stands at 1260 words, which is well and truly over the 500 word guideline. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  FYI, Strider12 is self-identified as a "her". Sbowers3 (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

• Accept, provisionally. James F. (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Episode images

Initiated by —TreasuryTag—t—c at 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Majorly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Edokter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (self-added)
• Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self-added)
• Wiggstar69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self added)
• Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self added)
• Several others who participated in the WP:FUR, who can add themselves as they see fit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

• Matthew
• Majorly

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Fair Use review
• Otherwise, this is an argument that has happened many times before, and will doubtless happen many times again.

Statement by TreasuryTag

This is a fairly complex case with several different strands...

• My situation - after an early history of blocks for edit-warring (3RR) and disruption, I was expertly mentored by an admin for 3 months and declared "clean" on February 28th. I had hopes of becoming an admin one day; I imagine that my stress over what happened around this case may have dashed those hopes.
• NFCC needs clarification - the issue began when Matthew (talk · contribs) deleted what he described as a "decorative fair use image".

• A consensus of regulars on the talkpage quickly developed amongst four users, one myself, one an admin, that a different image was appropriate.
• Matthew continued to delete the image, without engaging in helpful discussion , , , . All these reversions had particularly irritating, smug, copy-and-paste edit summaries that did not reflect the discussion on talkpage.
• The edit-warring was excused by Matthew as protected under the 3RR ("clear removal of copyright material"). He refused to accept that the case wasn't clear, despite numerous users disputing it.
• The committee really needs to rule on this issue once and for all. My suggestion is, that talkpage consensus must be developed to say that an image comes as close to meeting the NFCC as any image from that episode could; no producer would ever sue us and the episode articles look so much better with images.

• Discussion - the users deleting the image seem to have a real problem with engaging in effective discussion. Matthew continually edit-warred over the image's placement while discussion was continuing. He did this with non-descriptive edit-summaries which I have to say, I found indescribably irritating. I suspect this was deliberate.

• A consensus that the image failed NFCC (which is absurd, since the purpose of NFCC is presumably to prevent copyright litigation, and a pleasant image never would!), developed only after the edit-war.
• One user said that, "the vote is whether an image can be used, when it is not critical for understanding, and it is not." This is a disgusting abuse of the fact that different people have different PsOV. People cannot pretend that this is an absolutely obvious and clear-cut issue and that several other users are automatically and absolutely wrong... it's grossly offensive. Refusing to accept that the other side has brains too. Another person said, "I find it somewhat worrying that so many editors, some experienced, can be reading such a clear policy so wrongly." I am offended by this also. It's obviously not clear.

• {{newepisode}} - this is a template which I made in response to a consensus of myself, an admin, and one other user at WT:WHO. There was nobody against the proposal at the time.

• Matthew claimed that "Nobody has even supported that suggestion", despite being given a link to this page. He therefore lied.
• Other users pointed out that consensus cannot override policy; we need, therefore, to be clear about which policies constitute bright-line rules.

• Matthew's conduct - it's not been very good. Edit-warring, claiming that a balance of 4-1 doesn't exist as consensus, claiming that the balance of 4-1 makes it clear that the 1 is right.

• His edit summaries are simply designed to irritate; saying the same thing each time without reflecting the discussion.
• He needs to be warned about civility and related communication-policies.

• Majorly's conduct - demonstrated a major (!) conflict of interest by making the decision to not block Matthew for 3RR, and for removing my rollback.

• While I appreciate that there was, perhaps, a need for it to be removed, several people pointed out on ANI that Majorly's "close" relationship with Matthew should have precluded his acting in a case where Matthew is involved.
• Majorly also removed the rollback of Lerdthenerd (talk · contribs), where the same COI applied.
• I suggest that Majorly is severely warned about COI.

• Why should the committee take this case? It's an issue that's caused a lot of conflict in the past; it's going to cause a lot more.

• Furthermore, it would be a pity for episode articles to go without pretty picture un-necessarily.
• Finally, there are some behavioural issues that clearly need dealing with.

• Proposed temporary injunction - "no images may be added, removed, changed or deleted from episode, character or general fiction articles until further notices; neither may the images be deleted."

Statement by Matthew

This request is obviously premature/frivolous. I'm not actually sure what the above user is wanting the arbitration committee to arbitrate. Could it be the disagreement with the non-free content policy? Perhaps his misunderstanding of what a consensus is? I've no idea, and I'm not interested. Matthew (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusingly the above user - though filing this case - is removing decorative images. Maybe he's just making a point though. Matthew (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Majorly

As per Matthew. I also think TreasuryTag needs to learn about our non free content policy. Just reading "it would be a pity for episode articles to go without pretty picture un-necessarily" shows me his lack of knowledge in this area. As for COI, I never edit in this topic area - ever. Nor do I work with images. I think that this request is too premature and should be speedily declined. Majorly (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Edokter

I predict that ArbCom will not take this case, as it is primarely a content dispute. However, failure to adequately interpret NFCC policy is also root of the problem, but the commission is bound by the same policy, and it's shortcomings. I feel the underlying problem should be addressed by the Misplaced Pages Foundation instead. They have left the community with instruction, after which the community has implemented a policy that leaves way too much room for interpretation. The Foundation should have set a clear framework with which we can work with, otherwise these discussions will never end. — Edokter • Talk • 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To echo Will; Editors and admins are reminded to stay civil. I particularly like to invite Kaiba and Doc to strike their derogatory terms "Fanboys" and "Whiners". Those terms simply do not belong here. — Edokter • Talk • 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sceptre

I think this dispute is tangled so much that we need some clarification - not only policy clarification, but behavioural clarification too. Sceptre 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A comment to any further responses to this RFAR: please try to be civil, we're dealing with good-faith users, not SPA trolls. Furthermore, contesting the phrase "blatant violation of NFCC" is half of the reason why we're here, especially if there is confusion enough that admins are split over the usage of the phrase. Sceptre 17:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Wiggs

I have found the user Mathew to be incredably unhelpful throughout this process, I can see his motives and his points but he has gone about doing it in the wrong way and in some cases in an undermining fashion. The articals in which have had images removed will suffer and become less user freindly giving the reader less understanding of the topic.--Wiggs (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

In a relevant WP:ANI thread, Sceptre said "Matthew said on MSN that he was "going to start an edit war"". I commented that if true, Matthew's actions constituted intentional disruption worthy of a block. I've since been emailed what appears to be a log of the relevant conversation (but I don't use MSN so am in no position to evaluate that). If the log is accurate, Matthew's intent in starting the edit war was to get another user blocked - one who didn't participate in the war at all (unless there are alternate accounts I don't know about). I believe the committee should review at least this aspect of the case. GRBerry 17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Infophile

I've been involved with a few WP:WHO-related image discussions in the past, and the concern with "decorative" images could certainly use some clarification. I am a bit concerned that there hasn't been much prior effort at dispute resolution in this case, although with all the intertwined conflicts and problems here, that's understandable. There certainly are some behavioural concerns that haven't been adequately addressed by the community, but all in all, this case still strikes me as a bit premature. --Infophile 17:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

Clearly a content dispute, but with a policy-related background. As an admin who does a lot of fair-use work, the only issue here is that perhaps WP:NFCC must be made clearer, as a lot of users, including at least one admin in this case, quite obviously don't understand it. Black Kite 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kaiba

Oh please, the only reason this RFAr is started is because the Doctor Who fanboys didn't like the result of the deletion debate of that image. Sorry Doctor Who fans, you fall under WP:NFCC too. The ten points under fair use need a little clarifying, but your not the first to request it. Removing, redacting, or forcing higher-ups into submission on what the points in fair use are about is simply not going to happen. I would suggest you head over to the WikiMedia Foundation and start there if your actually serious about getting formal clarification. I hope you know that the ArbCom doesn't trump the Foundation, nor can they make decisions for them. — Κaiba 19:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Doc

Urge acceptance. Don't waste much time on it though, simply make a statement in the strongest possible terms that those enforcing our non-free content policies do not have to put up with any more crap. I recognise names among the complainants here that exhibited no clue about non-free content for some time. On one hand the community can deal with it, but on the other the flack those who are dealing with it are taking is wearing them down. Time to tell the whiners to shut the hell up, or go away.--Doc 22:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

I am one of those whose comments TreasuryTag mentioned in his statement, and stand 100% behind it. The exemptions for nonfree imagery are intended for when an image is essential to understanding a subject—in essence, when a major point of an article cannot be conveyed without including it. Such is simply not the case here. The image would not add significant understanding over what a simple reading of a well-written article would. "Replaceable" includes "replaceable by well-written prose," and we've clearly got such a situation here. I agree with Doc, we need stronger enforcement mechanisms against those who blatantly violate the nonfree image policy. (I also agree that our nonfree image policy has far too much wiggle room, especially compared to the Foundation's succinct requirements, and in practice far more than "minimal" usage occurs, but I'm not sure that's an issue ArbCom could solve.) Seraphimblade 09:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

Without examining all the diffs and history of this situation, I wonder if some of the requests for behavioral clarification regarding images might not be solved in the current case of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Proposed decision. Maybe if those are unclear or not perfectly applicable to this situation, or if those issues can be chopped off this situation, it would be a more concise request. MBisanz 14:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Comment: Waiting for further input before voting on acceptance, but I wanted to note that the proposed form of temporary injunction is certainly overbroad and could not be adopted in that form. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. I don't see enough prior attempts. Mediation is indicated. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. This individual case does not seem to warrant arbitration. It also seems that the current Betacommand case will address issues of the responsibilities and behaviour of administrators over non-free content. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per Charles, Sam. James F. (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• ]

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

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

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

Statement by MastCell

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

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

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

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

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

In response to Brad's comment.

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

In response to bainer's comment.

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

Statement by Ferrylodge

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to Brad's comment.

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

Statement by GRBerry

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

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

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

Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

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

• Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by PHG

I am requesting that the above case be amended so that I am not unduely attacked by User:Elonka through her abusive representation of the Arbcom decision. Elonka is trying to have me blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages , and is misusing Arbcom restrictions to achieve her means. Most recently, Elonka pushed for a one-week block against me, based on a compilation of false statements and claims against me, which was implemented through a 60-hour block by an unsuspecting Administrator (User:AGK), later abandoned for a "20 hours time served" in the face of a numerous opposition here. As User:Abd summarizes, Elonka has been "exaggerating the ArbComm decision regarding PHG as if it were a weapon rather than an attempt to cool things down."

False accusations

Elonka has been claiming blocks based on a compilation of false statements and undue stretching of my restriction perimeter:

• Elonka claimed that "He started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on Medieval History within the article)"
  

This statement is false: there was never "clearly a section on Medieval History" in the article in question (France-Japan relations (19th century)). The article actually started with a reference to the second half of the 16th century, which is certainly not part of the Medieval period, and therefore outside of the Arbcom ruling.

• Elonka claimed that I " re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)", as ground to have me blocked. Actually I did not recreate deleted content as has been claimed, I only inserted a small link to an older version of an article ("Long version here") instead of the 200k content that had been deleted. I am also not prohibited from creating User subpages so the claim to block me is inappropriate.
• As soon as I try to contribute to Talk Pages, Elonka claims that I am "not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree." . This is highly untrue, as the discussions claimed to have me blocked were either new (, far from being consensual (with many users actually agreeing with me) , or totally legitimate as they had not been discussed in detail yet (as recognized by User:Shell Kinney: "This is a step in the right direction and I think its worth fairly assessing each point to ensure we haven't over looked any usable parts."

Stretching of restriction perimeter

• Elonka claimed the fact that I created a User subpage as ground to have me blocked: "He started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)"
  

However, my subpages are certainly not targeted by the Arbcom restrictions, which only concern articles: I am totally free to create User subpages, even ones that would deal with ancient history or Medieval material. Actually this is important, since I intend to use this material when my restrictions are lifted.

• Elonka routinely misrepresents my Arbcom restrictions as affecting all history-related article, when in fact I am only restricted from editing Ancient History and Medieval History articles, inappropriately calling for blocks at the same time: "This user, User:PHG is restricted from working on history-related articles. The page may look good, but the user routinely misinterprets sources. Please delete, and block the user" .

• • Please Jehochman, rely on facts rather than rethorics and invective. Could you describe what you consider as "novel theories" in France-Japan relations (19th century)? I am very interested. PHG (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested remedy

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

Statement by AGK

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

I would like to post some thoughts here, just briefly, regarding this thread. It is indeed true that PHG's original enquiry was closed when posted on the incidents noticeboard, and he was directed to this noticeboard, I do not believe that this thread was justified, either there, and similarly, here. The most amicable course of action here—both, for the areas of the project affected, and for PHG himself—is for PHG to drop this matter.

PHG, you really are beginning to exhaust patience. Just when I thought you were turning over a new leaf, you drag this out again, and slice open scars that were just beginning to heal. This is neither helpful for anybody, nor impressive or giving of a good impression on you. Indeed, some statements in your recycled post are actually quite unacceptable: that Elonka is "harassing" you, that she is "misrepresenting your contributions", and that she is pushing for you to be expelled from the community are complete misrepresentations of the facts of the dispute.

I would very firmly suggest that you close this thread, and start building an encyclopedia. I said this when I initially blocked you, and I find it suitable here to say it again: the AC's restriction was a "sort yourself out" message—that is, it was a "last chance". You are very clearly not using that last chance in a way that could, by any interpretation, be considered a "good use". Rather than making yourself look better with this thread, you are simply raising the concern that I have, that your editing habits are not compatible with a collaborative encyclopedia.

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

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

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

Statement by Jehochman

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

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

• PHG, you have demanded far more than your fair share of attention. You fought tooth and nail, forcing us to spend inordinate amounts of time debugging your Franco-Mongol stories. Please understand that this will not be repeated in other areas of Misplaced Pages. You have not yet acknowledged the nature of past problems, nor undertaken to do better in the future. As such, I think it is time for you to take a break from editing, to reflect on what has happened here, and to see if you want to change your approach. Jehochman 16:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • PHG, you previously denied that anything was wrong with your work on Franco-Mongol alliance. You were proven wrong and subjected to sanctions, but you never acknowledged your mistakes, nor promised to do better. Now you deny that anything is wrong at France-Japan relations (19th century). This is de ja vu all over again. Jehochman 17:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

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

Statement by Shell Kinney

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

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

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

Very simply, Elonka is trying to have me blocked indefinitely on false pretexts (described above). There is no reason I should just stand iddle and keep being slandered and blocked abusely. I am asking that justice be done, and that, if I am accused unjustly, the accuser be warned against doing so. I trust an Arbcom case against someone is not a free license to say any untruth about him in total impunity. PHG (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse also. Anthøny 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• I've asked PHG to shorten his statement, at 752 words, it's well past the guideline. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm minded to proposed an extension to our ruling to include everything, not just articles, given the sub-page issue (which goes clearly against the spirit of the ruling, as AGK notes). James F. (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Request for clarification : Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

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

• Carcharoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self-added)
• All of the current arbitration committee that were active and recused on this case (will notify separately)

Statement by Carcharoth

Could the arbitration committee please clarify what has or has not resulted from the final principle and the associated remedy in the IRC case, namely: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Policy issues surrounding IRC and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC#IRC, and what is planned for the future, if anything. The principle in full is:

"The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case. passed 7-1 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

The remedy in full is:

"Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee. passed 9-0 with 1 abstention at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Updated 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I can state that several other channel ops and I have been working hard to take the communities views in hand when we have been discussing how to handle future behavioural issues in the channel. The first thing we've done is created guidlines for the channel which all users of the channel are aware of. These can be found here. The problems highlighted in the IRC case are mainly because members of the channel didn't understand what was expected of them and the channel operators didn't really know their role in stopping behavioural problems. The operators have now decided to take a more proactive role in the enforcement of channel standards, and all users are aware that if they start discussing people behind their backs, start being offensive or anything else which could be seen from the outside as unacceptable, they'll have their access removed. Obviously sometimes a warning may suffice, but in serious incidents, we'll remove on sight.

What we've also done is made the access list public, so any IRC user can see exactly who has access to the channel. On wiki, we've created User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info) so that everyone is aware exactly who has access to the channel, and who the channel operators are. If there's a concern with someones conduct, then anyone is welcome to contact one of the ops and it will be taken extremely seriously and we'll of course keep you informed of what is happening. At present, we're currently debating the role of non administrators in the channel and whether or not they should keep their access. We've had no consensus either way up to this point, but we'll keep on going highlighting both the benefits and disadvantages.

The channel has moved on a lot since the case and although there hasn't been any direction from ArbCom, the internal running and operation has taken a lot from the case and everything is now much clearer regarding expected standards and routes for ops to take if there are problems. If people have concerns, just contact one of us. I'm sure the arbitration committee would also be willing to hear of problems if the ops haven't dealt with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Related suggestion from Wetman

If the access list has been made public, can Ryan Postlethwaite ensure that it is entered in some acceptable fashion at Misplaced Pages:IRC channels, so that more ordinary Wikipedians like myself could actually access it?--Wetman (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a new proposed page. Please see User:Ryan Postlethwaite/IRC. This would replace the old admins channel wikipedia space page so it has to go through DRV which can be found at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 26#Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I linked the list at WP:IRC in the header of the WEA section, some weeks ago. FT2  11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Related suggestion from Lawrence Cohen

Can we get this list of users updated to seperate out admins from non-admins, with a direct 1:1 relationship shown what IRC handle connects with what English Misplaced Pages username? Lawrence § t/e 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done this at User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info). I linked the ones I knew of the top of my head and non-admins are in bold. John Reaves 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Related query by Bishonen

"Just contact one of us"..? Er, how? Why are people expected to know the way to CBrowns userspace if they have been treated badly on the channel? Why isn't there a public board in Misplaced Pages space (linked to from WP:AN and similar) where complaints can be dealt with by senior ops? Bishonen | talk 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

It should be noted that the anchored redirect WP:WEA broke when the header it redirected to was changed with this edit on 6 March. I've just fixed it, so now people can go straight to the big red box with the link to the guidelines when they click on WP:WEA. From there, they should be able to find someone to complain to. This is a work in progress, and I'm sure suggestions you make will be discussed. Any ideas for a suitable on-wiki talk page to discuss things? Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me commenting here Bish, please feel fee to move it if you want. I agree that CBrowns userspace isn't ideal, but people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins. I personally wouldn't mind it being in a more accessible location and it would be a good idea to link it more widely so that people are clear where and who to go to and the expected conduct of the users in the channel. I'm not sure a public board is a great idea for this, if there are problems, it would most likely involve passing logs to channel operators, or the channel operators getting evidence from logs which shouldn't be posted on-wiki. I personally don't have a problem with people coming to my talk page with their concerns and I'll communicate with them on wiki regarding the steps that I'm taking to resolve them - I just don't think a dedicated noticeboard is such a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment on that - that was taken care of at the same time, earlier this month. I linked the entire channel guidelines (including where to seek help and who are the channel operators) from WP:IRC#wikipedia-en-admins specifically to ensure that question had an answer, and those needing to know how to find the guidelines and help, could know.

I also added as a second measure, also earlier this month, a section to WP:IRC covering #Problems and help, and to be sure that was visible relinked it as well from near the top of the page too. It gives full details on how to seek help if there is a problem on an IRC channel. The pages they link to contain full details of every person in any kind of channel op role, on en-admins and more generally, for much of English Misplaced Pages IRC. FT2  18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Given that the remedy the committee passed was that the committee would address this issue, the activity Ryan discusses, while likely meritorious, does not actually fulfill the remedy. Is there a status update as to the committee's activity? GRBerry 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

First, I think this space should probably be reserved to ask the committee for an update on their views of IRC governance etc., and discussion of Bishonen's excellent question should be moved elsewhere (including my comments below, should someone be so bold as to start such a discussion).

I think a noticeboard for IRC chanops would be an excellent idea. Now, this gets a bit esoteric and lawyerish, but it seems to be the current situation that IRC is recognized as an independent creature, with different rules of conduct and methods of dispute resolution, and that Misplaced Pages has no authority to mandate any particular channel behavior or dispute resolution process. However, that does not mean that the chanops could not choose for their own convenience to host a noticeboard on Misplaced Pages. I think a noticeboard is an excellent idea because it will allow issues to be discussed by more than just the ops who happen to be online at a given moment, and it will have archives, including a record of when and why a user was added or removed from the channel that IRC itself does not provide. There already seems to be a sort of noticeboard at User talk:Cbrown1023/Guidelines.

However, hosting the noticeboard and associated policies/contact lists/dispute resolution processes in Misplaced Pages space presents the same problem it did before; it suggests that anyone can edit it, when in fact only the participants in IRC have a say and only the chanops (appear to) have the final say. So it may be necessary either to host the pages in project space but grant them an exemption from "everyone can edit" or to keep them in user space but raise their profile through linkage or even transclusion. Thatcher 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, IRC is not reccognised as an independent creature with separate and different rules. Jimbo, himslf, made this very clear here . Giano (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Further plea and misplaced clarification by Bishonen (but if not here, then where?)

I'm replying here to FT2's response to Carcharoth's basic question why the final principle "The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case" (passed 7-1) and its associated remedy "Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" (passed 9-0), have both come to naught. My post goes to clarifying the committee's final principles and remedies as they relate to en-admins IRC case—it's not about FT2's block of Giano—therefore I post it here, in preference to drowning it at the now extremely copious discussion of that block on WP:AE (most of it posted by FT2). Yes, I know I'm not supposed to post in this section, which is for arbs, but it seems my only chance of being heard. (I won't post again, whether or not you remove me from this spot, Thatcher. This has taken me much too much time as it is.)

Like probably most people, I feel at an awful disadvantage when attempting to discuss or debate with FT2, since he seems impressively able to write about 100 lines in the space of time that it takes your average wikipedian to write 20, and me to write 5. (And NYBrad to write 70 or so.) My efforts in the direction of debate with FT2 have always literally drowned. But I will try just once to do my own clarification. I made an effort to come to grips with the background to FT2's new guidelines for IRC (at this moment not available in CBrown's space, but mirrored at )—these guidelines being the only mouse that has so far been born from the laboring mountains of the IRC case, and it's final principles and remedies. The background to the guidelines, as offered by FT2 in channel to anybody interested, turned out to be an edited log of a discussion between FT2 and some 6 or 10 channel users (by FT2's own estimate) from February 25-26. I have it here. It's been edited by FT2 to remove irrelevancies, and consists–well, I don't have any counting tool that will work for this— but at my rough estimate, the discussion consists to at least 80% of FT2 himself talking, mainly describing how well the channel works now:

(Exact quote of log)

• <FT2> irc runs well now (here)
• <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
• <FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise"
• <FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code"
• <FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down...
• <FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise
• <FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here
• <FT2> its nice
• <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
• <FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not.

I discussed these matters with FT2 in PM on IRC several times, before he actually sent me the above log to look at, and I was rather shocked by his descriptions of that log. Here's a snippet of our discussion from March 5, posted with permission.

(Exact quote except that an e-mail address and a couple of typos have been removed.)

• <bishonen> may I have a copy of the full discussion of the channel? there was something about that in the header before.
• <FT2-away> sure :)
• its enacted now but there wasnt any controversy on it -- most folks reaction was "yeah, commonsense"
• <bishonen> thanks
• <FT2-away> I was just very careful to consult hugely to be sure that nobody could accidentally feel unasked or whatever. You know how it can go.
• <bishonen> i thought there was going to be a workgroup, or the arbcom would be involved.
• <FT2-away> I was thinking of the dispute over roillback.
• nah
• <bishonen> hugely?....
• <FT2-away> the channel basically sorted it out, about 6 or 10 people, everyone was pretty much "yeah, commonsense" by the time it was done
• <bishonen> so more people than the users of this channel were invoived?
• <FT2-away> no...
• <bishonen> i see
• <FT2-away> but there are a lot of users here... and of course those include a load of people who arent often here
• <bishonen> that's not hugely in my book, i'm afraid. but whatever.
• <FT2-away> the concern was to clean up and ensure that issues of the past were not going to be perrennial
• <bishonen> let me get this straight. only admins have been consulted? and only the minority of admins that use the admin channel?
• <FT2-away> and that's much more about people here accepting norms and considering what norms they feel apply, than about asking others... most people here or elsewhere who care about irc stuff, know what the issues are or were anyway
• <bishonen> do they?

To recapitulate: What has happened with the policy and procedures of the IRC en-admins channel since the IRC case was closed, then, is that there are now new guidelines for it in CBrown's userspace (update: no, actually at this moment in Martinp23's userspace), authored (largely) by FT2, and emphasizing how well the channel currently works. The origin of the new guidelines was an IRC discussion, massively dominated by FT2 himself, on February 25-26 between FT2 and a few admins. So much for the expanded role in the governance of IRC that the ArbCom undertook in its final principle. So much for its new oversight as foreseen in the remedy it voted for. May we please have some commentary from some of the arbs besides FT2—from those that put hand to keyboard and voted for a new role of arbcom with respect to IRC—voted for changes in policy and procedure, changes to be addressed by the committee—voted 9-0 and 7-1? FloNight? Newyorkbrad? Paul August? Clarification please? Especially, clarification of that which is never clarified by anybody, but always sidestepped — the role of James Forrester as envisaged by arbcom — would be appreciated to the point of jubilation. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

What on earth does one say, reading the above - just sums up the truth of what I have been saying for weeks. Have our Arbcom anything to say to justify themselves? Or are we all to be banned for wondering, and demanding that they answer and explain themselves. Giano (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I voted oppossed to the related "principle" and abstained with regard to the related "remedy". As far as I know ArbCom has yet to take any official action with regard to either. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by White Cat

Not that I want to stir trouble but I would like to remind people the above rule. Be careful what you post here as this is a public place to publish things. I just don't want to see anyone get banned.

-- Cat 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that these excerpts were posted by one of the participants with the explicit permission of the other; there is no issue on that front. — Coren  22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not accusing anyone of wrong doing. In the heat of the dispute people sometimes forget such things. This was intended as a good faith reminder. Nothing more or less. -- Cat 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Orderinchaos

I'd make the point, speaking to the notes and log above, that the current en-admins channel does have a wide membership in terms of its views, and I think despite the thinking of some that the diversity of the community's views are actually well represented there. A recent incident (well documented elsewhere so no need to do so here) resulted in strident criticism of the channel's operations, and as a critic myself of the initial handling of the matter, I was happy with how it was ultimately resolved. Orderinchaos 11:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad by Bishonen

in reply to NYB's opinion (moved from below)

"Succinctly"? LOL, come on, don't be so quick to dudgeon just because it's me. You're Patient Guy with everybody else, remember? Thank you for your answer. Will you clarify it a little bit more? I guess there may not indeed be community consensus that the ArbCom should exercise control over the channel, but it's my impression that there is/was ArbCom consensus for it (with the single exception of Paul August). Your own support for the principle "Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" is admittedly very hedged, being predicated on it being "unfair to the parties" to keep the IRC case open any longer (not that I quite see what one thing has to do with the other — did Paul's abstention keep the case open any extra time?) As a short version, would you agree with this description of the current state of affairs: the ArbCom is, with the exception of FT2, individually and collectively in flight from taking responsibilty for the principle+remedy in question? Are you all waiting for somebody else to fulfill the passive "input should be sought"? Bishonen | talk 01:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

"Succinctly" was a bit of self-criticism; I'm trying to cut back on the excessive length of some of my project-space posts (although I will note with a smile that I share your assessment that I will never be the longest-winded arbitrator so long as FT2 is serving on the committee alongside me).

The relationship between my vote and closing the case is that traditionally a case is not closed until all the pending substantive proposals have been voted on. The alternative to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later" would have been keeping the case open to address them now, and that would have prolonged the case, including the pendency of remedy proposals against several editors (including yourself) that you and I were both strongly opposed to.

I fear that "in flight" could be considered an NPOV term. I have acknowledged that we have not, or have not yet, collectively followed up on the agenda item of exerting control over the #admins channel. But I am not sure that we should be criticized for not implementing ArbCom governance of the channel without some evidence that either the denizens of the channel or the community at large (the views of both are entitled to strong consideration) wants us to do such a thing. In fact, putting aside the solicitation of the views of the whole community, I am not sure what you personally believe the committee should do at this time to implement the remedy cited and exercise responsibility over the channel, if we were to approach the matter collectively rather than individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Diverging from the committee as collective for a moment, I certainly honor you individually for supporting Paul August's motion to dismiss the case.) I'm aware of that tradition, but I thought voting against, or explicitly abstaining on, a substantive proposal counted as "voting on" it, too. No? Keeping the case open can't very well have been the only alternative to voting support to "issues relating to the channel will be addressed later". There was always the possibility of an (at the time) obviously impopular but franker and less foot-shuffling counterproposal that "issues relating to the channel will not be addressed by this committee, and as for James Forrester, forgeddabaddit. " Kicking the ball discreetly into my court ("what you personally believe the committee should do at this time") won't help either, I'm afraid. I have no straw for your collective bricks. If I had, I'd gladly offer it. But, to reverse a classic wiki-saying, I'm not ArbCom's mother. Bishonen | talk 09:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC).

The arbcom voted to address the issues, Jimbo told you that you have the "Jimbo given" authority, now cut the crap all of you get in there and do as you told us you were going to do. 9 Arbs voted to address the issues. So far we have seen FT2 and someone called Ryan Postlethwaite talk about how there is no problem. We all know too many bad blocks have been orchestrated there, and too much discussed with non-admins and toadies, so time to clean it up. If you are too frightened to solve the problems, then dissolve the channel. Incidentally where are these 9 brave Arbs who voted to address the problem in return for placing me on civility patrol? Has there been some form of unreported massacre? I don't believe I have read any reports of it? Now come on, cut the crap and address the problem. You Arbs enjoy banning me, now you keep to your side of the bargain - or does James Forrester rule you? Giano (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Good questions by all, and I'll have a go at an answer, but it probably won't be brief. Others will obviously have their view too. Firstly, some background reading for anyone unfamiliar with matters - and that includes a number of people who might feel they are familiar. I tried to describe the main points of the background on IRC as I see it (both sides) at: WP:RFC/IRC channels#Comment by FT2. It's "essential background" on the issue and dynamics, and forms the context of the decisions and any reply.

In the meantime I'm fitting drafting a fuller reply in between working stuff in my wiki-in-tray, as well as ever-present real world matters. I'll try to get it posted later today but it could be tomorrow or even a day beyond. That's unavoidable in a way -- the question actually asks for a short report in a way, rather than the usual simple opinion, since "measures taken" are meaningless without an understanding of the context, the disputes, and the various perspectives involved. And of course, a few have very strong views which in fact don't competely match reality, and that will be tricky to explain to them (as can happen in any dispute). So given the subject, it needs to be a bit more thorough. FT2  19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Newyorkbrad:

I will respond as Bishonen requests, while trying my best to heed her implied request that I do so succinctly.

Personally, I have not played a role in the governance of #admins or any other IRC channel, although I log into the channel from time to time (less often now than I did a few months ago, as it happens). Frankly, I think I am not alone among the arbitrators in not yet figured out quite how best to implement Jimbo Wales' request that the Arbitration Committee play a new role in overseeing channel governance. Nor is it clear to me that there is community consensus that the ArbCom, as such, should exercise control over the channel. Not only does there remain a lack of clarity as to the relationship, if any, between Misplaced Pages and the "Misplaced Pages" named IRC channels, but there remain very mixed views as to whether that lack of clarity is unacceptable, tolerable, or affirmatively desirable. Nor has there been further discussion so far as I am aware concerning the role of Jdforrester in this regard. As reflected in his contribution history, James has had to take some extended wikibreaks this year for real-world reasons and to the best of my knowledge has not been a participant in any matters related to the channel(s) for at least several weeks.

In the absence of a committee decision or consensus on how to proceed, individual arbitrators have tried to take the lead: first FloNight, by proposing the creation of a work group (a proposal that did not attain critical mass to go forward), and then FT2 with his proposal and adopting of channel guidelines. Other proposed initiatives to address concerns about the #admins channel, such as the suggestion that the access of everyone who is not an English Misplaced Pages admininstrator be revoked, have not attained consensus among users of the channel, and the new chan-ops have apparently decided not to implement them over widespread objections. The Arbitration Committee as a whole was not the decision-maker on this or any related issues. It bears note, however, that at least one controversial former participant in #admins, Tony Sidaway, has permanently relinquished his access to the channel and my sense is that there is no prospect of such access being restored save in the unlikely event he were to have a new and successful RfA.

If there is a perception that the committee needs to act on its adopted remedy to address issues relating to the administrators' IRC channel, then community input should be sought regarding what changes, if any, should be made. On whether this should be done now, or whether some time should be allowed to pass so we can judge whether the new guidelines have a salutary effect as sought by FT2 and others, I have no strong view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I recused from the Arbitration case for obvious reasons; since the case closed, I have been asked by a group of people who I judged (in my rôle as IRC Group Contact) to be representatives of the #wikipedia-en-admins community to carry out a few actions. However, I am (as intended) hands-off and, as Brad mentions, I have not particularly participated in any discussions regarding the channel's organisational aspects. James F. (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification/amendment: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

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

Statement by Moreschi

It is not clear to me whether the "area of conflict" for ARBAA2 is solely Armenian-Azeri articles, or whether it includes Azeri-Iranian/Iranian/Turkish articles, as I think it should, given it was these Perso-Turkic disputes that was partly responsible for kicking off the arbitration case in question. Going back over my little list I find a good number of Perso-Turkic arbcom cases: given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to extend, if necessary, the Armenia-Azeri discretionary sanctions to include Azeri-Iranian/Armenian-Turkish/etc. Just to clarify, I think the "area of conflict" for discretionary sanctions should be "articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". This accords with {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}}, but there seems to be dispute over the matter, not to mention confusion. So, do the discretionary sanctions apply only to Armenia-Azeri articles, or are we permitted a broader scope? Moreschi (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nishkid64

I have no problem broadening the "area of conflict" to include Turkey and Iran. The only reason I brought up this issue was because Moreschi reworded the AA2 remedy without consultation or clarification from ArbCom. In response to bainer's comments, I must disagree with his interpretation of the two areas of conflicts. To me, "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" just refers to Armenia and Azerbaijan, while the other area of conflict covers Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran. The latter is not the same, as it addresses topics covered in separate ArbCom cases. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

My understanding is that the sanctions should apply to Iran and Turkey too as they involve related conflicts (particularly the Persian-Azeri/Iranian-Turkic edit war and issues relating to the Armenian Genocide). One user, ChateauLincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has already been restricted under these sanctions simply for edit-warring on an article about an Iranian city which has little to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan. I think the AA2 remedy should be reworded in line with the template to clarify matters. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

I am against broadening the scope of the remedies. The intended scope of the arbcom and remedies was always Azerbaijan and Armenia and related issues, while there might be problems on Turkey and Iran articles but they were outside the arbcom scope. If we include Turkey and Iran we get a huge geographical and historical areas covered by a very few (often tendentious) editors. If we include it to the scope we could easily get all the active editors there banned on a whim. We should also remember that the buck does not stop here. We have huge Turkey-Greece, Turkey-Kurdish, Kurdish-Arab, Iran-Arab, Iran-Afghanistan problems so why not include Arabic, Greek and Afghani editors as well, then we would notice Arab-Israeli, Greek-Macedonian, USA-Arabic editorial conflicts and we would broad the scope of the remedies to the half of the wikieditors. Lets not extend the scope of the remedies on a whim we need a line here Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by White Cat

I think the arbcom remedies are far too harsh. There currently is a martial law in the articles covered by this case making it very unpleasant to make any kind of edits. Particularly in experienced new users are bitten to death. Also good users avoid these articles due to the near-malicious attempts to abuse the remedies. So you are pretty much left with a group of disruptive users battling each other editing from multiple sockpuppet accounts. Of course this is an oversimplification of the issue but still something to think about.

Really disruptive users do not obey the arbcom remedies and edit through sockuppets. While reviewing logs for the case below I noticed the block log of Fadix which was quite recently reset making it the 4th reset. Such users should perhaps be indef banned for good. I gave Fadix as an example pretty much randomly, any other ban evaders should share the same faith.

Rather that expanding the scope of the case, users that edit disruptively should be penalized for gaming the system. The second you expand the scope disruptive users will find a new topic to disrupt, away from the remedies in question.

Also, based on my experience I feel several of the involved admins are far too involved and are unable to make sound judgments. It might be necesary to review their conduct.

-- Cat 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Remedies 1 and 2 can be narrowly read in such a way that they seem to cover different articles for different editors. The amended remedy did not redefine the scope of the case, and only says, "area of conflict." However, the last time this issue was brought before the committee, the answer was that it was the intent of the committee that the same scope and remedies apply to all editors, see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Clarification request October 2007. Thatcher 10:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The January motion essentially substituted in our more recent boilerplate for general discretionary sanctions; it made no change to the original scope of the discretionary sanctions, which was "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". For the original supervised editing sanction the more explicit wording "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" was used, though to me those are exactly the same, the latter merely being more precise. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording has to be tightened. Obviously the case was written to control the AA problems and the effects thereof, meaning clashes between A or A against Iran or A or A against Turkey. As the wording stands, something which does not have AA as a common factor, eg, something about the Hittites or even some ancient archaeology like Ephesus or Ahmadinejad and Jews can be put under this sanction if a dispute arises. I think it'll have to include the provision of "Turkish and Iranian history and ethnic issues that are related to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Request for appeal: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

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

• White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Formerly Coolcat) (initiator)
• Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Anatolmethanol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Drosophilawhodoestnotfly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Rodolui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Didodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  1 year ban per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Fadix banned (ban reset on 25 February 2008)

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

  aka Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Diyarbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Indef blocked per WT:RFAR/Moby Dick#Request for clarification and indefinite block of Moby Dick, April-May 2007

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

  aka Karl Meier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Inactive since 14 February 2008

Appeal by White Cat

I'd like to appeal for the #Coolcat prohibited from mediating remedy. I was banned from acting as a mediator until I was officially appointed to the Mediation Committee. While I do want to help out as a mediator I do not necessarily want to be officially appointed.

I have not notified other involved parties because two of them have been indefinitely blocked and I do not want to bother the third one since we pretty much parted ways.

-- Cat 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by arbitrator Sam Blacketer

The community will not show any confidence in a person with such a remedy. Mediation Committee will not officially appoint such a person. The reality on the ground is this. -- Cat 14:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by Moreschi

I find that statement very offensive and provocative. I am not racist. The statement is in no way parallel to reality. I have not edited the said topics for months for example. If the assertion in the statement were accurate, should I not be banned indefinitely? -- Cat 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by arbitrator Newyorkbrad

All my past mediation attempts failed because Davenbelle and Fadix interfered with each and every one of them. The decision by arbcom back in 2005 omitted this detail.

Back then arbcom was also not able to rule on the Davenbelle stalking issue. Since then not a whole lot has changed. In the form of Jack Merridew, Davenbelle is still around and just like back then arbcom is unhelpful in resolving the dispute.

So because people have replaced Davenbelle/Fadix's role in trolling disagreements to full scale flame wars and because I have completely lost my faith in dispute resolution as of #Jack Merridew case on this very page, I have no intention of engaging in mediation or dispute resolution processes (RfC's, RFAr's, anything else I left out) of any kind from now on. All my sanctions from that first arbitration case has expired. There is this one leftover which I would be better off without. People have been slapping me with it to gain advantage in debates. Most peopled do not even know about it, but people who harass/stalk me definitely use such things.

The remedy in question was never enforced. I also cannot see how it could be enforced. Mediating isn't a disruptive activity. As you point out the remedy in question was passed 4-3 in other words with 1 net support vote. 1.1 version was 5-2 which is 3 net votes. 1.2 version had 7 net support votes. I was given the most severe remedy.

-- Cat 16:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by arbitrator bainer

Unfortunately it is not possible for me to give such an example. All my mediation attempts including the ones on topics I have no opinion on had interference by Davenbelle. In fact Davenbelle was present on nearly every article I edited, every discussion or vote I have participated in since my earliest days on Misplaced Pages. There had been exceptions but overwhelmingly there wasn't an instance where Davenbelle/Stereotek and to a degree Fadix wasn't involved.

Javier Solana was one of them, Nanjing Massacre another. I tried mediating both topics and I knew nothing about them. I still don't know much as I do not care.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence/Coolcat
  • #Interference with my mediation attempt at Nanking massacre. Also a senseless revert war for image sizes
  • #Interference with my mediation attempt at Javier Solana

I admit starting to learn how to mediate on Genocide/Massacre related articles was not the best of all ideas. I realized that back then and focused on Javier Solana. Davenbelle followed me to that one too.

I do not believe a successful mediation is possible under the conditions I operated. Issues requiring mediation are already tense and do not need a stalker coming in to attack the mediator. Disaster is guaranteed in such conditions. I do not believe the mediator should be blamed for the failure.

I would oppose such a topic mediation ban. Not that I would mediate such things but the presence of such a remedy would again be used limitlessly by trolls on unrelated issues such as RFAs. "No one wants an admin who is sanctioned by arbcom indefinitely" for example. Community won't trust a person under arbitration remedies. In other words community wont trust someone arbcom believes cannot be trusted that they pass remedy that wont expire. So cause and effect has entered an infinite loop here.

-- Cat 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to the statement by Folantin

See, when you keep encountering the same people it starts to bother you...

Above is from Talk:List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

Not surprising that a Armenia-Azerbaijan mob started showing up. User:Moreschi was also involved with this article in question.

I stated above: "people have replaced Davenbelle/Fadix's role". I stand corrected. This is why I will not even attempt to mediate.

I also thank Folantin for clearly establishing that I had no pov issues with the "Nanking massacre" article. Had Davenbelle, Stereotek and Fadix not collectively interfered who knows how would the mediation work out...

-- Cat 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about your presence here but your presence there... Someone who does not acknowledge governmental sources as a (biased or not) reliable source is unfit to talk about NPOV. -- Cat 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to misunderstand the basics behind NPOV. Turkish government as far as I know has a very consistent view on the issue in question which is adequately covered on the linked webpage. If it doesn't appeal to your perspective of history, too bad. Coverage on Misplaced Pages isn't about "truth" but about what is sourced. If you can challenge a source with another one, the wording can be adjusted accordingly. You presented no such source to date. Your reasons to exclude the said source seems to be your own personal point of view just as your presence here. -- Cat 17:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to statement by Black Kite

Me suspecting that someone is a sockpuppet has little to do with the remedy I am appealing for. I do believe my suspicion has a basis and I am quite certain to that end. It is an ongoing case never the less far from complete. -- Cat 20:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

I really don't recommend altering this. White Cat is still the same old Armenian-bashing, anti-Kurd POV-pusher he was back at the time of the arbitration case. At the very least mediators should pretend to some faint semblance of neutrality. White Cat doesn't come close to cutting the mustard. Moreschi (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil on this page Moreschi. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. You chaps are seriously contemplating letting White Cat - White Cat - go back to mediating. And you're freaking out because I called him a POV-pusher, an entirely accurate description, as Folantin has nicely proved. Talk about screwball sense of priorities. Moreschi (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, White Cat has just made my point for me. He still thinks that the Turkish Government is a reliable source for matters relating to the Armenian Genocide and Armenian-Turkish conflict stemming from the genocide, despite countless attempts to explain to him why this is not the case. It's the old, classic fallacy of equating NPOV with middle ground. HE JUST DOES NOT GET IT. Mediators need clue as well. Moreschi (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I suggest not changing the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from AGK

I'd like to note that the remedy self-terminates when White Cat (née Cool Cat) is appointed to the Mediation Committee—not the Mediation Cabal. There's a few mentions of the MedCab in various statements and comments (I pick up on Sam's view, below, as an example). After all, one cannot be "appointed" to the Mediation Cabal, by its very nature. Just a comment, for technical accuracy purposes. AGK § 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

No thanks. White Cat's contributions to the 2005 Nanking massacre talk page are an object lesson in how NOT to mediate a contentious article. In White Cat's own words: "I tried mediating both topics and I knew nothing about them. I still don't know much as I do not care". That's the reason why it failed, not the interference of some stalker. White Cat thought that committing the fallacy of middle ground ("it's always six of one and half a dozen of the other") at enormous length was somehow equivalent to NPOV. As Bathrobe put it when, well into the mediation, White Cat asked who Koizumi was: "It is a bit rich that Cool Cat is trying to moderate this article when he doesn't even know who the current Prime Minister is. How can you decide what the facts are when you don't even know the basic ones"? His attempted "mediation" of the Armenian genocide article was even worse, given the obvious pro-Turkish bias of his general editing history.

An example of White Cat's "moderation" : "You are obligated to recognise my authority and the authority of all moderators and they recognise yours, you are welcome to ignore me but any more Personal Attacks from you will not be tollerated. Such attacks will result in your destruction, I do not WANT your destruction. I am warning you so that you dont get destroyed. This is neither a threat nor an attack - just a freindly warning. I am a moderator and so are you. Everyone on wikipedia is a moderator. Not everyone is an Admin. I know mods who turn down admin requests as it is a lot of hard work so dont underestimate/dismiss us mods". --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to White Cat

Your point being what? I've collaborated with Moreschi on several occasions trying to maintain NPOV on Armenian-Azeri-Turkish-Iranian pages. In fact, I only noticed this appeal when I was looking for clarification on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arb regarding Iranian articles. You seem to have taken up semi-permanent residence on RFAR and ANI, so it's hardly surprising people keep stumbling across you. None of this has any bearing on the arguments I presented. --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Must be a new definition of reliable source if we're allowed to use a Turkish tourist board website trying to attract punters by presenting a history of Armenian-Turkish relations so skewed that it doesn't mention the Seljuk invasions (erm, so how exactly did the Turks get to Armenia in the first place?), the Hamidian massacres or even the Armenian genocide. Mind you, it took forever to get you to stop linking blatant hate sites like TallArmenianTale. But that's beside the point. "This is why I will not even attempt to mediate". Good. So we're all agreed now. --Folantin (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I would just point out that a meditor's main attribute is an ability to assume good faith, yet White Cat writes above "In the form of Jack Merridew, Davenbelle is still around..." despite nothing of the sort having been proved. Black Kite 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon69

I have had no real on-wiki interaction with this editor and have only known this editor through IRC though with only a small amount of time has been spent in direct conversation with him but i feel that perhaps in the spirit of this encyclopedia's OWN policy we all start assuming a little good faith. This was passed 2 years ago and time has moved on. It may be an idea to allow him an opportunity to mediate one case under supervision through MedCabal by co-mediation. Now i don't expect him to solve this case as the Cabal has far from a 100% success rate but i think what does deserve to happen is that we see how he acts. Seddon69 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Xavexgoem

I second Seddon69. I was in IRC at the time, and this seems like a common sense approach. Note that I was not canvassed; I just wandered into the conversation and was bored enough to go through the diffs in the '05 arbcom case. Conduct may have been poor at that time, but I agree with Seddon69 that this was 2 years ago and People Change. I think that allowing mediation through WP:MEDCAB would be best to allow some degree of oversight; and I recommend to White Cat that he avoid mediating issues ethnic, religious, or political (esp. in regards to SW Asia), but that would be up to him.

I don't believe I've seen him around medcab's talk page, so I don't know what the coordinators (User:PhilKnight & User:Vassyana) and other old timers would think of this. At any rate, I think it's acceptable to drop the sanction but bring transgressions to enforcement per the '05 case. A trial run, if you will. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The remedy unusually has a built-in provision for its own termination: if White Cat can win the confidence of the community and be appointed to the Mediation cabal, the remedy is discharged. While noting that he prefers not to go down this route, I regard it as the best way of determining if he is a suitable user to act as mediator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some of the remedies and especially the long-forgotten enforcement provision contained in the Davenbelle decision are weird. It also is not completely clear to me that remedy 1 (rather than 1.1) is the one that should have been deemed to have passed. That being said, it is apparent that when this case was decided a couple of years ago, the arbitrators were pretty much unanimously convinced that White Cat's talents lie in areas unrelated to mediating disputes and that his past attempts at mediation had worsened rather than helped solve problems. I would like to ask White Cat to briefly explain what has changed since the time of that decision such that he now wants to help mediate things again. I would also ask White Cat if he would agree that any attempts at informal mediation (because the chances that he will be appointed to the Mediation Committee are non-existent) would related to areas unrelated to the topics on which he has engaged in editorial disputes recently, such as Turkish/Kurdish and episodes-and-characters-related matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, choosing 1 to pass does seem odd. I too think the underlying opinion was clear. There were two common factors (subject-matter in which White Cat has an interest, and the involvement of certain editors) which probably contributed to the failure of those attempts at mediation, but the third common factor remains White Cat's involvement. The issue for you, White Cat, is to demonstrate which of these factors is really the problem; that is, should we continue to prevent you from acting as mediator altogether, or would the better remedy be to restrict you merely from mediating disputes to do with those certain editors or certain subject-matter? It would be good if you could point to some incidences of successful mediation that you had been involved in before this remedy was passed. --bainer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wholly opposed to removing these restrictions. I do not feel that the encyclopedia project will be helped thereby. The restrictions were imposed because of real problems. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Andries: appeal of topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba

Initiated by user:Andries. Andries (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

I request a complete lift of my topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba. It has been more than a year now. My edits on the topic were described by the arbcom as generally responsible Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Editing_by_Andries Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Editing_by_Andries and no diffs of disruptive or activist editing on the article Sathya Sai Baba were provided by the arbcom members in spite of my demand to several arb com members to back up the allegations against me with diffs. Please read the comment by user:Bishonen Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editing

If a complete lift of the topic ban is not granted then I request a partial lift e.g. only talk page or only on Sathya Sai Baba movement that contains now some (entertaining) original research POV comments. (I can give details on request) I was and still am the only serious contributor to that article and there were never serious problems with it. Please check the history to check of Sathya Sai Baba movement to see whether I am incompetent or a blatant POV pusher.

Also, I purchased some of the sources as recommended by Jossi and the arbcom on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2, which is fine material on Sathya Sai Baba movement (and to a much lesser extent for Sathya Sai Baba).

This is not about anti-Sathya Sai Baba activism but about providing correct information. For example, the summary of the article Sathya Sai Baba contains as per 14 March a blunder diff that remained uncorrected as of 22 March. Sathya Sai Baba is generally not described by his followers as a godman (Hindu ascetic) and this is not supported by the listed references in Sathya Sai Baba and Godman (Hindu ascetic). Godman is a term used in Western Academics and only very rarely by followers of Sathya Sai Baba. I guess everybody agrees that nobody wants blunders to remain uncorrected in the summaries. Andries (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I want to repeat my opinion that the problem with the article was in part due to the nature of the subject and the sources available as the following quote illustrates.

The strict fact of his personal biography and manner of life are buried beneath layer upon layer of hagiography. (see esp. the works of Kasturi; also Gokak 1975). As far as I am aware no objective account of Sathya Sai Baba’s life has been written by anyone close to him. Indeed such an account may be an inherent impossibility: it unlikely that anyone who is allowed in to his inner circles would want to write in such a vein.
Thus Sathya Sai Baba himself cannot be the actual subject of an account of his cult. For now, so supposedly ‘real’ Sathya Sai Baba’ can be anymore real than an imagined character in fiction.

— Lawrence A. Babb, Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, chapter Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, published by Waveland press 2000 (original publisher is by Oxford University Press 1987) ISBN 577661532, page 160

I also hope that arbcom members can review the effect of complete topic banning (incl. talk page) of long time contributors with a good knowledge of the subject and access to sources before making similar decisions. I hope that the arbcom will not repeat such flawed decisions in other cases.

Statement by uninvolved Relata refero

I have spent some time reviewing the recent history of the Sathya Sai Baba-related pages, and there is little or no doubt in my mind that the articles need a little more attention than they are currently getting. I understand User:Andries runs a website critical of this movement, but we do not at this point, I understand, view that as a direct CoI. I note also that there are some examples I can think of of "topic experts" who are known to be major critics of individuals/movements and yet are visible participants in editing/discussing articles on those individuals or movements. This has produced few major problems (though some drama, I suppose), but, more to the point, seems to be acceptable by our current community standards.

I urge ArbCom to lift this restriction, because the quality of the articles needs it. Relata refero (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I take the view that this remedy, whether appropriate in the first place, is no longer needed. As noted in the original case, Andries was not an irresponsible editor of Sathya Sai Baba. His position as webmaster of a site critical of Sathya Sai Baba does give a conflict of interest on matters directly relating to that website but it is stretching a point to say that it gives a conflict of interest on the entire subject. Therefore I will be proposing to discharge the remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• My wish in SSBII was to impose a 1RR remedy on Andries. I still think that would be good, in place of the topic ban. My one shading to that view, as of 2008, is that we are moving closer to taking COI as a disqualification from editing. Well, for the purposes of clearer argument, I still hold to the idea that the real disqualification is not being able to edit within the basic content policies. Editing with a COI is a kind of stress-testing of one's ability to do just that. Andries has a score of over 90%, I'd say (I worked through very many of his edits at the time of SSBII, so this is more than impressionistic). The failures were to do with reading WP:RS in a reasonable light. So, I'd support 1RR and a caution not to red-line RS, for a probationary period, the revert restriction being subject to a review after 3 months. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee