Revision as of 02:42, 24 December 2009

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Jehochman

Initiated by FT2  at 00:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• FT2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A range of attempts have been tried including:

1. Mediation (via Hersfold and SirFozzie)
2. Question on past conduct on Arbcom candidate Q&A page - an answer speaking to the concern would have ended it here.
3. Uninvolved formal opinion sought on evidence from uninvolved Oversighter
4. Second uninvolved formal opinion sought on evidence
5. More email dialog aimed at communal review via RFC.
6. Showed good faith, for example by removing dispute threads believing that we had reached (or were imminently near) an amicable joint RFC.
7. Jehochman ended collegial discussion. Questionable (see below) RFAR filed shortly after by Jehochman.. Arbcom determined any legitimate concerns should be put "on hold" until after the election, but without prejudice to refile if genuine grounds existed.

Filing an RFC requires multiple certifiers who tried to resolve the issue. But the matters here were first admitted off-wiki and there have been numerous blatant deceptive statements by Jehochman (who then sought RFAR), so almost no users (mediators and uninvolved reviewers aside) were ever in a position to become informed and try to resolve them. It is therefore very unlikely that a valid RFC co-certifier will exist.

In light of

1. multiple previous attempts;
2. the pervasive and serious nature of the issues;
3. the scope of the case which speaks to clear deliberate deception, bad faith conduct of an admin, and gross breach of trust;
4. RFC certification concerns;
5. The need for formal review (I cannot decide for the entire community to bury all evidence without checking consensus at some formal venue, given the possible seriousness and evidence); and
6. Evidence of extensive and deliberate abuse and bad faith as an admin over a long period by Jehochman (including gaming across two elections, two RFCs and two RFARs) which gave rise to this case,

the Committee is asked to accept the case rather than refer it elsewhere.

Statement by FT2

Jehochman has a hidden history of improper actions (including deliberate abuse of process and gaming) that sharply contrast with the trust expected of an administrator. There is a parallel history of deliberately deceiving the community on numerous occasions about his actions and their true motives, and aggressive attacks: repeatedly misrepresenting/smearing via unbalanced/misrepresentative/(often) blatantly untrue claims, for personal agendas.

He abused RFC, recall, and RFAR by presenting them as good faith while in reality undertaking them for retaliation. He repeatedly engaged in systematic "deliberate community deception" including at trust-based processes, and gamed the norms of privacy (intended to prevent copyright breach) to ensure he could be untruthful to the community and his claims on-wiki could not be matched against his statements off-wiki or the deception uncovered. He used unfounded accusations/attacks/smears, often knowingly false or misleading, as "smoke".

Sample evidence:

Abuse of process / Community deception at ACE2008

1. Stated off-wiki that RFC, Recall, and RFAR were used by him as a "political game".
   Stated off-wiki the immediate motive was retaliation, also described as "temper", "anger", "pique" and "personal grievance". (Has never denied these in private.)
2. When asked at ACE2008 if he had engaged in "political games", especially in the context of Elonka, denied it and asserted bad faith: "Claims of me being political are rumors started by those who like to play politics."
3. Eventual part admission: "I confirm that my prior attempts in 2008 to use wikiprocess to get you desysopped were motivated by personal pique".

Community deception at ACE2009:

1. As a candidate was asked about past conduct. Used attacks, gaming and deception to conceal. (some evidenced below).
2. Alison was scathing: - the evidence was "unequivocal"; it showed "deliberate community deception" and "lying on-wiki to smear FT2s name and to wiggle out of your own clear faux-pas".

Gaming the privacy system:

1. Alison's statement:"From reading your responses in the logs, it's clear here that FT2 has not misrepresented what you said, which is clear and unequivocal... you knew other, less clued-in folks would believe your on-wiki answer, even though you knew that it was untrue... Of course, you're counting on the fact that it's his word against yours. However, the complete logs clearly show the truth here... deliberate community deception".
2. Yet Jehochman continued barely 3 hours later:"The voters will have to decide if they believe you or me"

Accusing/misrepresenting/smearing others to cover himself:
(Note how often accusations are repeated despite rebuttal)

1. Alleged "misrepresentation": - "seriously misrepresented...", "inaccurate representation", "My final answer is that FT2 misrepresents what I said and did".
   Disproven by Alison and later conceded "FT2 may have accurately represented my words"
2. Alleged bad faith:(line 294). Some were knowingly deceptive not just bad faith.
3. Claimed (misleadingly) unreasonable to discuss or no issue existed: (untruth: no other user was affected)
4. Deception/attack at RFAR related to informal mediation:. In fact no mediation at all was breached. (There was an agreement but diametrically opposite, Oct 10: - "Caveat... I would reserve the right to correct a clear, blatant untruth or misrepresentation.").
5. "Apologies" to the community contained untruths:. (Jehochman didn't speak with me at all (!) until I contacted him subsequently about deception.)
6. Spuriously accused Alison of improper conduct at RFAR:. Alison responded

Jehochman's own partial admissions:

1. (Elonka  FT2). Posted only after extensive counter-efforts on-wiki (deception, gaming, bad faith, and evasion) led to multiple functionaries reviewing the evidence, and followed by the same again.

There is a small amount of crucial off-wiki evidence (provable privately or summarize publicly). The salient snippets ("particularly damning") have not once been claimed inaccurate in private.

Applicable norms: WP:ADMIN and RFARs (admin/editor conduct), WP:NPA ("accusations that lack evidence"), WP:GAME (gaming/abuse), and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.   (AGF is not so relevant; this is deliberate deception/agenda not failure of faith.)

Alison's followup explanation.

FT2  00:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

this section is reserved for a statement by user:Jehochman.

Statement by John Vandenberg

what.the.fuck. Can't this wait until the new year? Is he abusing sysop tools now?

FT2 says a "Joint RFC cut short", but I don't see an RFC at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jehochman. Where is it? I'm guessing that he didnt mean "RFC".

He also says "Filing an RFC is not viable". I am not sure that is true, as there are a few other people who are involved in attempting to resolve this (Hersfold, SirFozzie; Alison, Lar?). Two of the potential certifiers are now waiting to take their seat on Arbcom; have they not seen the basis for this dispute? Why can't they certify it?

If it is purely a procedural issue, perhaps the committee members can recommend an RFC, as it did for Giano early in 2009. John Vandenberg 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

Well, obviously, even if the results aren't ceremonially announced yet, I would need to recuse myself on this request. I worked with the parties during the initial stages, under the terms that what was said there would stay under mediatorial terms. I have my viewpoint of what happened to get us here, and I have my opinion of the situation. However, I must decline to speak further, as I did the last time this was before the committee. I will again not comment further due to the promises I made to both parties and myself when I was asked to mediate, but hope that there is a way to resolve the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Comment - judging from the page history, the request is being actively edited and is not yet ready to be read. I'll check back tomorrow to see if it is finished, and will also await a statement from Jehochman. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SeanNovack and Marlin1975

Initiated by Rapier1 (talk) at 05:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• SeanNovack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Marlin1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• User talk:Marlin1975
• User talk:SeanNovack

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Kent Hrbek
• Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Kent Hrbek

Statement by SeanNovack

It appears that this editor is not happy with my political stance, and it is affecting his judgement and behavior on Misplaced Pages. While editing the Fox News Channel article in early November we were on opposite sides of a debate over edits regarding POV, with Marlin continually making personal attacks, commenting on the editor as opposed to the edit, and pushing a POV. All the while accusing others of doing the same thing. If you look at my userpage you will see the message he left me there. Since losing that debate, this user has been following my edits looking for a way to make changes. I don't believe this is editing in good faith and it appears that he is doing this with other editors as well. Kent Hrbek is the example that finally set off my temper. I asked for mediation, no response from Marlin. This user has a history of this behavior and has already been banned. I'm asking for 1.) A cease and desist on the confrontational behavior or a re-ban, 2.) A decision on the Kent Hrbek article, and by proxy the Ron Gant article.

Response to Coren

I have attempted mediation, but as that requires the consent of both parties and Marlin has not been responsive to this that has been ineffective. Also, each time there is an issue I've brought it to the WP:NPOV Noticeboard for discussion. This has resulted in uncivil discourse, and with the exception of the Hrbek-Gant issue (to which there has not been enough participation) the consensus has gone in my favor, which only seems to aggravate the situation. Rapier1 (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Wizardman

I would be happy to have you interceed as a third party and help with this situation. As a fairly inexperienced editor (one who is not familiar with the technicalities or proper proceedure) please contact me directly so we can start the process. Rapier1 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

• Please be aware of the fact that responses to Arbitrators should be made at your own section. As such, I have refactored SeanNovack's comment.　(Note: User:SeanNovack signs as Rapier1.) - Penwhale | 20:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/1)

• Decline; This matter appears to be premature for the Committee. Have you considered getting a third opinion or seeking formal mediation? — Coren  14:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: As a frequent editor to baseball articles I can help you guys out, provide a third opinion or make a compromise solution if you're up to it. It can solve this issue without the need for arbitration (and since this is a content dispute, we would not be able to do anything) Wizardman 20:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. I understand the non-responsiveness to mediation suggestions is a problem. However, there are still dispute resolution avenues left available to you. For the conduct issues, there is a noticeboard for civility feedback and another for requesting administrative intervention. Arbitration is the option of last resort and there are still many other avenues left for resolving the content and conduct issues involved in this situation. Vassyana (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline at this time. As Vassyana indicates, there are other approaches available at this time which would be less contentious and protracted than an arbitration case. Please be assured that this does not mean we don't think your dispute is important, simply that we don't think arbitration is the best path toward resolving it right now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Reject - Premature. Wizardman's offer is interesting. -- FayssalF - 03:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Newyorkbrad. Carcharoth (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Newyorkbrad and Vassyana. Risker (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

McCready edit warring topic ban

Initiated by User:Mccready at 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

Statement by Mccready

I request that my topic ban for edit warring be lifted or modified on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Misplaced Pages since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed.

I give notice of an appeal on other grounds if this request fails. These other grounds would require a substantial amount of detailed work (going back to my history since joining wikipedia) which I hope we can all avoid. Vassyana has described my case as a battleground. For this reason I have not included attempts to get the ban lifted or modified because they have involved this history (irrelevant if we look to my contributions since the ban) and admins who have reached a point where they refuse to discuss the matter further. Kevin McCready (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana Thank you for your decision to recuse, which I think should apply to the second leg of my appeal, should that be needed. However, I think it remains open to you to express a view on the quality of my edits since the ban. If you look at my edits since then, as if I were a new user, would they give grounds for concern?

Response to Carcharoth The admin who decided this non-arbitration related ban has a notice on their talkpage that they are semiretired. They have refused further involvement after I questioned their review.

Response to Wizardman I will show in my second leg of appeal, should that be needed, that it wasn't a "community ban". Since you have not yet heard my arguments on this score, it remains open to you to participate in the first leg of the appeal. ie 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Misplaced Pages since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. This is a matter of AGF on my edits since the ban, edits which have contributed to the project.

Response to Risker As above to Wizardman. I think it would be more efficient to deal with the first leg first rather than waste time on the history.

Response to Middle 8 I obviously dispute your views and will refute them in the second leg if necessary.

Kevin McCready (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Question for clerk I'd be grateful if you could tell me what "should this be converted to an amendment request (as this doesn't seem like material for a full case)?" means? I'm unsure if this means I should amend my case. All I've ever wanted is for someone to look at it objectively without drama. Each admin that has looked at it has run away when I have asked for evidence for their position or shown how their conclusion is illogical.

Response again to Risker As I've just noted above I seek to make this as simple as possible with as little drama as possible. The question I'd like arbcom to answer, if I can put it this way, is that given my good record of edits since the ban, why not lift the ban or modify it? It can very quickly be reinstated if needed. The path you seem to want to go down is much more tortuous, and involves much more presentation of evidence going back to when I first joined wikipedia. In particular the disputed block log was referred to repeatedly during the discussion which morphed into my banning while I was blocked. Another way of arbcom setting a precedent might be simply to say: a user should not be topic banned while blocked and unable to properly present a case. Possibly the clerk's clarification as requested above might also help. Over to you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Middle 8

Hi, just a quick comment from a mostly (re)tired user. This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then, including with an IP (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics . I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, but he has not shown that he can stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his argumentation (culminating in a block) over this topic ban shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war {April '08) anyway.

With regard to Mccready's "disputed block log" (his term), what one finds with a little digging is that most of the blocks were for good reasons, like 3RR violations, but that he objected because in some cases the block was made by an involved admin. In other words, sometimes the blocks were made by the wrong person, but the blocks themselves were (with one or two exceptions) sound.

@Carcharoth: I believe this ban was a community ban (arising from much discussion at AN/I and elsewhere) and did not involve ArbCom. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Atlan

I have no opinion on the imposed ban, but I would like the arbitrators to know, Mccready has been specifically directed to Arbcom on multiple occasions to appeal his ban. His most recent block was partly because Mccready refused to do so at first. To keep sending him back and forth between Arbcom and the community seems like poor treatment to me, whatever the merits of this topic ban.--Atlan (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Urge the committee to take this case, both supporting Atlan's comment above, and the reverse point that the community needs this matter resolving. As far as I can see several administrators have attempted to deal with the matter with limited or no success, and it has come up numerous times on AN/I. An ARBCOM support/extend/overturn/expire or indeed any clear outcome would be good for the community at large. Clearly one that returns Mccready to productive editing is preferable. Rich Farmbrough, 04:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

Clerk notes

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

As a point of information for the Arbitrators, Mccready is currently blocked; the block is currently set to expire at 5:11 December 15, UTC. Also, should this be converted to an amendment request (as this doesn't seem like material for a full case)? Hersfold 00:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: User has now been unblocked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mccready: You've not done anything wrong in filing this, don't worry. The reason I asked the arbs about that was because usually ban appeals such as this are handled as amendment requests (see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment) because any action by the Committee would be changing (or amending) the original sanction. In general, a full arbitration case involves a multi-step process where parties to a dispute present evidence about the dispute, propose possible outcomes, and then the Arbitration Committee votes on a series of final drafts of those proposals. Cases like this typically take a month or two. An amendment request, on the other hand, usually is handled through simple motions by the Committee, and goes much faster without the need for any formal case. It seems as though from the comments below as though the Committee would rather handle this the more formal way, so I'll defer to their judgement. Hersfold 20:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Risker: See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive581#Admin_Kevin. User_talk:Mccready#Topic_Ban and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Fresh_Admin_Eyes may also be applicable. - Penwhale | 21:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• Recuse. Obviously involved in this matter. Vassyana (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. It needs to be clarified whether the initial topic bans were done under discretionary arbitration sanctions, or whether they were non-arbitration related sanctions. If the former, then an amendment request related to the relevant case (after the current block expires) would be best. If the latter, then the first port of call would be those who imposed the sanctions - or, if you want to skip that step, ask those who imposed the sanctions to state here if they are willing to relax them, and (from what you have said) why they are unwilling to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the links, Penwhale. I've looked at those, and what I see is a series of reviews of this topic ban by the same people (VirtualSteve, User:Kevin and a few others). It would have helped if someone different had done the reviews in each instance after the first one. What might be best is to direct Mccready to prepare a full appeal (the current one is not detailed enough), and to invite the previously involved admins and the community to comment on it, and then see what results from that. In other words, draw more eyes to this to get a more definitive verdict. Most of the work for this need to be done by Mccready (say two weeks to prepare something in his userspace), and he needs to accept that if this fails, then he cannot appeal again for a whole year. This will be better than a continuing cycle of AN or ANI threads where the same people comment, and hardly anyone else bothers to read or comment on the threads. Essentially, accept and leave Maccready to prepare a full on-wiki appeal to submit when he is ready, followed by discussion for a week, and then a verdict, and then leave the matter alone for a year. Of course, this is dependent on my colleagues agreeing with me that this is needed. If no-one else votes to accept or look at this, then I would suggest the community use a similar framework (allow Maccready to build a full appeal in his userspace), and then deliver their verdict, along with a restriction as to future appeals (e.g. fulfil certain conditions, and require evidence of changes in conduct, before appealing again). Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Seeing as how it's been 18 months and it was a community-instituted ban, I'd rather defer it to them. Wizardman 04:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: On reading the user's talk page, I see reference to recent discussions with other administrators and/or the community about lifting of this ban. I'd like to see some links specifically to those recent discussions, please, and the administrators involved should be invited to comment on this page. Mcready, that's something you need to include here. Risker (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Mcready, there won't be a second part if you do not provide enough information to support your contention. The fact that there is the appearance of your having raised the subject of your topic ban with the community prior to coming here may be a key factor in the Committee's decision whether or not to accept your case. Please provide the links. Risker (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)