Revision as of 14:10, 17 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's block of Drolz09

Initiated by Mackan79 (talk) at 23:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Mackan79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drolz09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Jehochman
• Drolz09
• Viriditas

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Mackan79

Yesterday a dispute involving User:Viriditas and User:Drolz09 was brought to AN/I in a discussion now seen here. The users have been in a dispute originating at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Drolz had just started to create an RfC regarding Viriditas. Viriditas requested that an “interaction ban” be applied to the two editors.

The first editor to respond, Jayron32, commented that it would be nice if they agreed not to comment about each other. Craftyminion called the idea of an interaction ban “absurd” and suggested that they act like grown-ups. JzG called the situation “lame,” and said they should find something else to do. Mathsci asked Drolz if he was a sock,, to which Drolz responded reasonably. I commented that it looked like a good faith misunderstanding. I do not believe any of these editors were involved in the underlying dispute. At this point Jehochman arrived and indefinitely blocked the user.

Jehochman’s block is in my view a clear misuse of the administrative tools. Drolz had been editing on this topic for 8 days, and had never been blocked. He had a small number of unrelated constructive edits prior. The closest thing he received to a warning appears to have been two comments, two days ago, from involved editors on the page. No evidence of any inappropriate edit following such “warnings” was presented. Among other things, it is entirely evident that Drolz’ comments were in no way less civil or topical than those of other long term editors and administrators on the page (they were not bad by any standard). The user had no chance to address Jehochman’s concerns, and remained blocked through a long discussion about him on AN/I involving many long term editors involved in the content dispute. Jehochman asked for the block not be lifted, and maintains that he was justified in his approach. In sum I think the block was an unacceptable abuse of this editor, well outside the bounds of admin discretion, and I think it is an issue that ArbCom should resolve. Mackan79 (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Jehochman:I hate these replies, so I'll try to avoid them. I commented a great deal in the AN/I discussion because the user was being manhandled. Involved editors such as Viriditas and ChrisO continued to comment, both of whose actions had been at least as problematic as Drolz09's (which, granted, doesn't say much). There is no evidence that he is a remotely disruptive user, yet he was indefinitely blocked and had to sit and watch a long discussion on AN/I about him to which he could not respond. On his own talk page he described this as outrageous. I agree. Mackan79 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad: My main concern is that a user who for all we know is entirely capable and well intentioned has been treated effectively like a reprobate with no cause for doing so. His experience with Misplaced Pages is permanently damaged, basically because an admin took a glance at his edits and thought, "Eh, more trouble than he's worth." I wonder how many of Misplaced Pages's most dedicated users would be here if they had been indef blocked in their first few days of editing, for almost matching the tone of other long term editors in a discussion. The level of callousness that was expressed toward this editor is, in my view, unacceptable, and in explaining this to Jehochman I have not gotten the feeling at all that he hears it. A couple of comments about related inappropriate behavior can perhaps suggest he has heard it a little. Drolz has been unblocked now, true. My questions are, 1.) is Jehochman going to continue blocking editors on a whim, without discussion and 2.) what's the least that can be done for an editor who we just spent the last day needlessly slapping around? I think this did real damage to this editor, and I think a review of the incident will show that the block was not just partly but wholly unjustified. If not I invite anyone to present the evidence here. It doesn't mean I want to see Jehochman desyssoped by any means, but I think there should be an admonishment, or something so that this does not happen again. One other thing: I'm not aware of the need for a wider case. I've seen Viriditas recently reach out to Cla68 to participate and mentor another opposing editor, which I think is admirable and suggests against it. Recall also that Viriditas did not ask for Drolz to be blocked. Mackan79 (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Wehwalt, Gatoclass, et al: I'd like to clarify that I intended to distinguish "misuse" from the more commonly used "abuse," but on reflection that probably makes some of you right. I think the block is clearly wrong. I also don't think you can say an editor engaged in a content dispute is "solely engaged in disruption," any more than we call biased edits vandalism; this is not how I have ever seen blocking policy approached. A look at the user's edits following the December 14 warning shows that they are much more substantive.. But, given that this is not abuse of the tools, and that the user is now unblocked, it should probably be a community issue. I'll strike my request, although I am not sure it should be withdrawn at this point given the other editors involved and the other issues raised. Mackan79 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The record is clear. Please read it . Mackan79 posted excessively at an ANI discussion, overwhelming the discussion, and here presents a distorted view of events. There is nothing needing arbitration, yet, . Jehochman 23:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If the Committee is looking for business (aren't we all, these days), they could take the broader case as Cla68 hints at. The atmosphere at that article is severely toxic. Scrutinize the involved editors and hand out sanctions, and general sanctions. Admins need additional tools to control the disruption there. As today's action demonstrates, WP:ANI is insufficient to the task. We need arbitration enforcement: blocks that can't be overturned on a whim. If the Committee is feeling unambitious, wait until the new arbitrators are seated, and throw them to the wolves. Jehochman 03:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

1. We don't unblock users to defend themselves at WP:ANI. That's not the custom. Drolz09 is making unreasonable demands, and attempting to spread disruption to multiple pages. Involuntary editing restrictions may be needed if Drolz09 persists. I hope that Drolz09 proves my assessment wrong by dropping the matter and editing properly.
2. We may need to have a case about Climategate. The article is going to be unprotected tomorrow. I've issued a general warning to use dispute resolution instead of edit warring, but am pessimistic that everybody will listen. This is a complex dispute involving multiple parties with claims, cross claims, and refusals to use proper dispute resolution processes. I recommend leaving this request pending until we see what happens. ArbCom may be able to help. Jehochman 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Drolz09

This incident began with a talkpage dispute between me and Viriditas. He commented on user talk:A Quest For Knowledge , which I had on watch for other reasons, and I responded to him . Viriditas moved my post to another section and ordered me not to respond to him. I objected to this violation of WP:TALKNO, and moved it back, at which point Viriditas began an edit war over the disposition of my post, and repeatedly ignored my requests to leave it be.

Viriditas then initiated an ANI proceeding, which I responded to with diffs clearly showing his violation of WP:TALKNO.

Viriditas then proposed a "Voluntary Ban," which I took to be a prohibition on my posting anywhere he had posted. I refused, restating my position that it was Viriditas who was in violation of TALKNO, and that I would not be punished for his misbehavior .

At this point, I AFK for approximately one hour, and when I return, Jehochman has indefinitely blocked me based on evidence entirely unrelated to the incident at hand. I request to be unbanned so that I can post a defense of myself on the main thread, where I am being relentlessly pilloried by Viriditas and other involved editors such as ChrisO and TS . Jehochman refuses, and says that whatever I post on my talk page will be copied over . Only one post actually is copied over to the ANI page, and Viriditas responds with a series of allegations that I refute on my talk page, but this is never copied to the main thread.

I was initially banned based on a series of diffs all from 12/8/2009 which were construed to be violations of two warnings I had received six days later on 12/14/09 . Throughout this process, Viriditas's TALKNO violations that gave rise to the ANI were studiously ignored by Jehochman. It also seems that he may have based some of his decision to block me on the totally unfounded claim that I am a sockpuppet .

Neutral editors pointed out that my behavior was not at all out of the norm on the CRU talkpage .

Jehochman then began insisting that I accept a series of conditions for having my block rescinded, and I repeatedly stated my position that I would accept any administrative decision if I were allowed to defend myself on the main thread, but that I would not falsely admit to wrongdoing in exchange for an unblock . In response to this, Jehochman takes advantage of my inability to defend myself in the main thread by making a series of posts implying that I am simply intransigent and am refusing to accept reasonable terms or offer a counter proposal, without ever mentioning my reasoning .

I believe that Jehochman unfairly blocked me without giving me a chance to defend myself. Imposed unfair conditions on me for removing the block. Misrepresented me in the main thread. Additionally, he did not address Viriditas's obvious TALKNO violations that started this entire incident. I don't see how this is anything other than a wholesale abuse of admin privilege.

My perception of the deeper background relative to the incident can be seen here . Drolz 00:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt: In light of the overwhelming evidence of malfeasance, and Jehochman's ongoing refusal to admit wrongdoing, it does not seem to me the use of Arbcomm time would be either excessive or unwarranted. Drolz 01:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to statement by Newyorkbrad

I can't say for sure how urgent this case is, but it seems that if it were up to Jehochman, I would still be blocked right now, and I would be sanctioned when the block expired. I'd say that there is at least some urgency. After doing a little research, I came upon what seems to be an extensive history of (at best) questionable admin behavior by Jehochman . Drolz 06:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to statements by Vassyana

It doesn't seem to me that Finell has looked into the background of this event, or addressed Jehochman's conduct during it. The statement, "A block of this tendentious editor was warranted to stop disruption," offers no evidence that I was either tendentious or disruptive at all. He also seems to have at least some history of supporting Jehochman in other disputes , which he doesn't seem to feel the need to mention, despite accusing Ncmvocalist of not being neutral. Drolz 11:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Wehwalt

I also questioned the block, and worked with Jehochman and Drolz09 to find a way to resolve the issue, though I was reluctant to do an unblock myself, I'm somewhat gunshy after the User:Die4Dixie incident. I believe AN/I participants are much too hasty to go in with an indefinite block, and leave it for the blocked user to navigate his way out of the block by proposing or agreeing to conditions. However, in this case, Drolz09 is unblocked, obviously hopping mad but unblocked. I suggest that given ArbCom's limited time, that it wait to take up a case where there is a live controversy, that is, where there is an ongoing block or editing restricting and therefore I suggest this case not be heard.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

There is a fairly severe content dispute going on over at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. I believe this incident may be fallout from that. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

Drolz09 (talk · contribs) was blocked after two warnings from User:Tony Sidaway and User:2over0 (see also WP:ANI#Request_interaction_ban_on_Drolz09) as a recently arrived SPA creating disruption on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. His account was created just under two years ago, but suddenly became active about a week ago. Despite registering 2 years ago, Drolz09 referred to himself as a "new user", a fact he did not adequately explain when I asked (as the diff provided by User:Mackan79 shows, I did not ask him whether he was a sockpuppet account, just about this strange anomoly). The user seems well versed in wikipedia jargon and usage. He has attempted to start an RfC, as yet uncertified, on User:Viriditas. He had previously been collecting a laundry list of quotations of Viriditas on his user page, which, after an MfD was started, was moved to a subpage User:Drolz09/Quotations. The familiarity of this account with wikipedia processes, particularly their participation here and the reaction to Jehochman's block, is still highly problematic. Global Warming articles are known as magnets for sockpuppet accounts. This particular issue is hardly a matter for the Arbitration Committee to address and is a needless escalation of dispute resolution by both Mackan79 and Drolz09. Mackan79 has asserted that he regards the discussions on WP:ANI cited above as equivalent to an RfC. This is clearly not the case. Mathsci (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by The Four Deuces

Drolz09 is a disruptive editor and his case has taken up hours of peoples' time. When blocked his response was to blame other people and suggest that the administrator resign. His knowledge of WP procedure and jargon suggest that he is probably a sock of a banned editor. He has provided no constructive contribution to the project whatsoever. There is no reason to bring him back. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist

Requesting more information Could someone also provide evidence of prior dispute resolution on the article, or on the editors involved in this incident/article? Also, Mathsci, can you please provide diffs for the "two warnings from administrators" that Drolz received? And Mackan79, could you please provide diffs for the warnings you referred to? I will be collapsing these questions so it's sufficient to include the diffs in the original comments, but I note that if the warnings were from involved users, it would be improper to expect that the warning would be treated and respected in the same way as if it were issued by someone uninvolved. Some editor and admin conduct issues have clearly been festering, particularly with respect to approach. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The topic area or article needs to be looked at to decide fair sanctions (if any are appropriate) on any of the users editing in that area. Further to this, the subject's general admin conduct should also be arbitrated in light of the fact he refuses to take responsibility for his actions - as I noted in another case. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last. I am uninvolved in this dispute, and beyond that also, except in so far as giving feedback to the blocking admin on prior occasions, which he recently was not receptive to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved ATren

I believe the block was bad. There was a lot of conflict on the ClimateGate talk page and to single out one editor was wrong. I also believe indef was inappropriate, as were the veiled accusations of bad faith on the AN/I thread which were used to justify the block (e.g. sock puppetry). No evidence was provided to support these insinuations other than the fact that Drolz had a narrow focus area and hadn't edited much since joining over a year ago. I believe more assumption of good faith and mentoring of Drolz would have been better here than a reactionary block.

IMO, Viriditas was initially overly hostile to Drolz, which may have been the triggering event for this whole drama, but Viriditas has since backed down.

In any case, the block has been lifted, so I think we can all move on without the drama of a case. ATren (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Finell

Arbitration is supposed to be a last resort, not a first resort. Looking at Drolz09's admittedly short history, this editor was making a lot of trouble in a short period of time. A block of this tendentious editor was warranted to stop disruption, and Jehochman acted decisively. He made a good case for an indefinite block, pointing out that indefinite does not mean permanent, and some editors agreed with him. Others believed that an indefinite block was excessive. This was discussed, and was resolved, at AN/I—which is where it belongs. Jehochman listened to the discussion and shortened the block to one week. Another admin shortened it to time served and unblocked Drolz09. Either of these two results would have been appropriate, given the opinions expressed at AN/I. If Drolz09's behavior has improved as a result of this process, the project benefited from what happened. If it turns that unblocking this editor was premature, that can be remedied. The system worked as it should, even it wasn't the smoothest AN/I this year.

On the other hand, this request for arbitration is way out of line, in my opinion.—Finell 05:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ncmvocalist

Your animosity toward Jehochman is well known. I am sure that by now he is not your biggest fan, either. Nevertheless, this page is not the right place for you to carry on your battle with him. Give it a rest!—Finell 08:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gatoclass

I was one of those who disagreed with the initial block but I certainly don't agree that it rises to the level of "misuse of tools" as the filing party contends. While it's true that blocking policy states that "new" users are entitled to more consideration than experienced ones, the policy also states, as Jehochman himself pointed out, that accounts used primarily for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning, so in a case like this I think it's an issue of judgement rather than of "misuse of tools".

As to the block itself, I didn't get a chance to follow up my initial comment that I felt the block to be excessive, but having had a little more time to review the history of the blocked user, albeit not thoroughly, there certainly appears to be a pattern of combativeness over the course of the last few days that rings alarm bells. So while I still tend to the view at this stage that the block was excessive, one can see how Jehochman might have come to the conclusion he did. In which case, I see no issue worthy of arbitration here. Gatoclass (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ANI wanderer Datheisen

It would be a horrible precedent for ArbCom to make any response to such an isolated incident, and it would be tantamount to endorsing and justifying short-term mob mentality of retaliation at Misplaced Pages. It should also be speedily declined as there have been no attempts at "resolution" here. The matter of a block and its length was discussed at AN/I, where it should be, and some cross-talkpage banter. It was even suggested that RFC be used, since the scope of the discussion turned beyond what ANI is for, so it seems clear the protagonists in this case had and have no good faith in the dispute resolution process. If you look past this case being filed, no need for consensus, frivolous talking points, ignorance toward the rest of dispute resolution, unblock compromise offered by the sysop in question being completely ignored, mix-and-match incivility in a few places and the unblock that led instantly to far more disruptive behavior, I suppose it was a straightforward ANI case. Ironically, Drolz09's actions immediately after being unblocked completely justify it being placed in the first place and why it shouldn't have been removed so quickly.

My statements in the discussion were limited to policy and procedure, as I know none of the involved persons. I confess, I started to get frustrated at how quickly things were continuously elevated. After this was mentioned as an option of "abuse of power" my response was On an "abuse of power" scale, given there was a history of incivility in some regards, this ranks somewhere between baby harp seal and baby kitten on a scale of 1 to 10. Having slept on it, I'm sticking with my personal opinion on that. It was one block from one sysop that offered fair reason for the original action, was willing to discuss a change in terms and was awaiting a consensus on whatever was next. It never came and a compromise was offered. That was ignored. I'm not sure what could have been done at the time besides a sysop pointlessly surrendering a backed stance on an issue. A short read of any other large discussions at ANI shows this is getting more common. It's a nasty trend forming of attempts to avoid the dispute resolution process and propose community-level sanctions from hastily-discussed ANIs. This has even included a request of sanctions on an editor because of disagreements that started in that discussion. I and others have mostly been mocked or entirely ignored for trying to intervene with civility proposals, as Jehochiman attempted in this case. If his actions are to be evaluated, I ask that the gaming of the dispute resolution system by the filing parties be looked at as an issue of equal importance. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

$0.02 from JzG

I see no evidence of anyone acting in anything other than good faith. This is just a waste of yet more time, I would say the parties should seek mediation as the root of the problem is a content dispute and a distinctly lame escalation of it. I suspect existing restrictions will be sufficient to contain the dispute should any uninvolved admin feel like taking it on. The dispute is not going away any time soon, the climate change deniers won't let it and neither will the Chicken Little faction, so we'd better get used to dragging the warring parties apart from time to time. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Clerk note Drolz09, you are currently at 584 words, the word limit is 500, I'm not going to ask you to cut any words at this time, but please keep the limit in mind should you feel the need to comment further, as further expansion is discouraged. MBisanz 03:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• Drolz09 has been unblocked, about 12 hours after the block was imposed and about 3 hours after the duration was initially downgraded. This does not automatically mean that the request for arbitration is moot, but it does lessen the urgency of the case unless there are continuing issues or a pattern of problems requiring our attention. The parties are asked to comment briefly on whether this is so and what specifically we would now be asked to arbitrate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Finell's statement is persuasive. I do not see the need for arbitration here. If there are outstanding issues remaining, please utilize the other options available for resolving disputes. Vassyana (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee

Initiated by Hipocrite (talk) at 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Risker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in her capacity as Arbitor and member of the Audit Subcommittee
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in his capacity as Arbitor and member of the Audit Subcommittee
• Dominic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in his capacity as member of the Audit Subcommittee
• Jredmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in his capacity as member of the Audit Subcommittee
• Tznkai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in his capacity as member of the Audit Subcommittee

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Regarding disputed oversights for an Arbitrator.

Statement by Hipocrite

I submitted a complaint to the Audit Subcomittee in mid November 2009. The request was acknoledged as recieved. Per the comittee's page at the time, "During the investigation, the subcommittee shall keep the complainant, the subject of the complaint, and the coordinating arbitrator or their deputy informed of its progress and expected date of completion." I have recieved no notifications of the progress and expected date of completion. This was changed after the submission of my complaint, and I have no concerns with the change (from "shall keep informed" to "should keep informed").

The comittee's page has, at all times stated that "Within a reasonable time of a complaint having been referred to it, the subcommittee shall present their findings on the matter to the Committee by forwarding them to the Committee's mailing list (arbcom-l). The subcommittee may determine what constitutes a reasonable time for this purpose, which should not be less than one week, nor more than three weeks... The Committee shall distribute copies of the subcommittee's final report to the subject of the complaint and the complainant, unless doing so would substantially jeopardize the security of the project." It has been more than four weeks, and I have not recieved notification that the report would jeopardize the security of the project, nor have I recieved a report.

I have repeatedly requested status updates or completion of the case - I was told that "we should see some movement soon" on December 1. I was told that "The subcommittee is discussing all pending matters and I have reason to believe that we will issue decisions or reports on all of them to the parties soon, hopefully by the weekend." on December 9. That weekend ended yesterday. I suggested that if the comittee is not fufilling it's mandate, I would mark it historical. I was instructed not to do so, and I will abide by that instruction.

However, I request that ArbCom as a whole please instruct the comittee to complete their report within a specified timeframe, or remit the task back to the Arbitration Comittee at large. The Arbitration Committee should also consider folding the Audit SumCom back into itself, as the audit SubCom is not fufiling it's mandate.

If this is not the apropriate venue for this request I apologize in advance and ask that it be taken up, for public review, in the appropriate venue. Thanks.

Response to SMacD

As I was informed that I was not to mark the page as historical by a sitting member of the comittee and an arbitor, I operate under the assumption that an RFC also could not fold the audit comittee back into the full comittee. If the ArbCom disagrees and would submit to community consensus, I will instead open an RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to NYB and any of the other named parties

Don't respond to this request. Shove it right in my mug by releasing the report before any more time is wasted. In fact, if you can do the report in under 24 hours from timestamp below, I'll take the first article with any prospects that I reach on "random article" to GA or FA. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I was worried, because the article I picked randomly was pretty hard to source online. Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The user of books and other printed sources is permitted. Now back to work on these AUSC reports.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Retraction

Thank you for releasing the report. Is it appropriate for me to delete this section or does that need to be done officially? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald (uninvolved)

Not sure what is to be "arbitrated" here. I'd suggest that Hipocrite considers an RfC to gauge whether there is widespread community concern.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Unless Hipocrite's statements have missed material facts, the concerns seem quite justified . I agree with the instruction not to mark the page as historical. That said, Hipocrite, I think it was bad to assume that RfCs should not be used because of that instruction.

RfCs are also merely a place/means to make voluntary agreements, even if they are community-wide. Even ArbCom members and AUSC members often participate to present their views. Filing one in this case would not have undermined any group of users, or their views, but merely would have been an attempt to resolve issues, and/or raise greater awareness of them. Therefore, that would've been a better way to go here, IMO, on the facts presented so far. Moreover, it may have involved a narrower focus of changing the details of when the AUSC is expected to issue a report rather than if the AUSC is doing what it's meant to do, etc. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC) . 19:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Cube lurker

I've become aware of this situation due to the fact that I have several pages on my watchlist that have been used by the posting party to request action on this issue. Regardless of the proper venue, here or an RFC, I think the fact that we've reached this point without resolution demonstrates that there is a problem here. Even though a formal case may not be the proper venue, steps should be taken to fix a process that isn't up to speed.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Mailer diablo

Might not be the best place to raise this issue... Would an interim report of material facts have helped? This is a standard practice by many investigative bodies where more time is needed. - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Protonk

Largely a reply to Carcharoth. Ideally WT:AUSC would be an appropriate place to place this request, but the AUSC is an organ of Arbcom. If a discussion on the talk page led to a consensus that the AUSC were to be dissolved, would the arbcom dissolve it? If a discussion there led to a consensus that practices of the AUSC be fundamentally changed would they be? Protonk (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Elen of the Roads

I've managed the corporate complaints of a large local authority for 15 years now. The key to successful complaints management is timely and proactive management of communication. We aim to communicate with the complainant at regular intervals, we tell them when they can expect to hear from us next, and we give them a reasonable estimate of how long it will take to deal with their complaint. If you don't do that, the customer thinks you've thrown their complaint in the bin. If you go on and on and on about how much work you have to do, and how difficult your life is, the customer thinks you are belittling them. If you keep giving deadlines you don't meet, the customer thinks you are trying to fob them off.

I can't answer Hipocrite's complaint, but as guidance going forward, I would change your rules slightly, to:

1. the complainant will be contacted within 48hrs and advised who will be investigating and when they can expect to hear from them
2. the investigator, upon contacting the complainant should, in addition to whatever information gathering they might need to do, advise the complainant of when they can expect to hear from the investigator again. Not when they can expect to get an answer, but when they can expect to get an update.
3. the investigator must update the complainant at the promised time, and advise either when the next update will be or when a response can be expected
4. if the response cannot be issued when it was advised, the complainant must be contacted and advised that there is a delay, and when they can expect to hear from the investigator again.

This keeps the flow of information going and stops the customer from pestering you.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Hans Adler

I once worked for several years in an industry that is notoriously bad at keeping within deadlines and delivering what the customers have in mind. I was surprised how patient customers are as long as you keep them informed proactively. Someone must make sure that things keep moving. If the customer only hears from you in the form of responses to enquiries, they will assume that it's their job to keep you active. If you send them a weekly status message, most will be glad that they can simply rely on you, and they will be much more patient. I am not sure if, or how, this is applicable, but perhaps thinking about it helps. Hans Adler 23:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Lar

There is a report due that involves me. I'm not worried about it because I have every reason to believe it's forthcoming soon enough. Procedures to keep folk informed could be improved yes, but Hipocrite has made his point and we get it... Decline this case and move on. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• Recused MBisanz 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Recused - Mailer Diablo 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/2/0)

• As a formal matter, recuse. As a factual matter, as I commented on my talkpage, the Audit Subcommittee with its recently reconstituted membership has been working through all the requests and complaints we have received, and hopes to reach conclusions on them shortly. Having to take time out from that work, plus voting on the various pending arbitration cases and requests, to respond to this request for arbitration, is not going to help expedite matters. Hipocrite has already done a very effective job of prodding us along, which is useful, without having to escalate to this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • By way of update, the subcommittee members are continuing to discuss and make progress on the open cases, in addition to (in the case of the arbitrator members) our regular ArbCom work. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I did a bit of prodding myself recently, after seeing some of Hipocrite's earlier posts. Specifically, I requested that the audit subcommittee make an on-wiki indication of the number of cases they are working on. Hopefully that update will happen at some point. To allay some of the concern, there have been some informal reports to the full committee of what work has been done. Maybe not as much as could have been reported, but, to be frank, lots of things are running slowly at this time of year (arbitration cases, ban appeals subcommittee work, audit subcommittee work). What is needed is for the backlog to be visible. I've proposed having on-wiki records of what work BASC and AUSC are currently doing, so some measure of efficiency is possible, but actually having that consistently done may have to wait until the current backlogs are cleared, and time is freed up to (briefly) discuss and make those changes. As a point of order, it would have been eminently possible to have this discussion at WT:AUSC, rather than here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline. The activity on this is now more visible (if not public yet). From what I've seen, AUSC are indeed fulfilling their mandate. A discussion on how to make that activity more visible and to improve communications can be held elsewhere. I agree with what Elen of the Roads and Hans Adler say - it applies to more that just AUSC. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• As a formal matter, recuse. Practically speaking, since October 31, the AUSC has taken in three new members, lost another member to resignation, reestablished the structure of the subcommittee with its new membership, and worked through mountains of evidence (new members having to review evidence on cases open when they started, as well as the new cases). I believe it is a better use of the subcommittee's time to get the work done rather than have to spend the next month involved in an arbcom case. Risker (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Incidentally the report is now available here. Risker (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline for now While I understand and sympathise with Hipocrite's very real sense of frustration, I am also sympathetic to the human dimension here. AUSC has gone through various upheavals over the last month or so, not least of which have been significant changes in personnel and a higher than anticipated number of requests for review. There are only so many hours in the day and I do not imagine for a moment that the subcommittee is sitting on its hands. There will be occasions, and it is unlikely that this will be the only one, where their ability to deliver within the target times will prove impossible. There will be other occasions, as has happened in the past, where reviews are completed in significantly less than the target times. In the circumstances, forbearance might be the most Wikipedian way forward.  Roger Davies 12:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; the delay is annoying even me but, in all honesty, a half-new committee of volunteers will take some time digging through the pile of existing evidence and work and there is little that can be done about this. I also note that some of the members have had limited activity recently which makes things worse. While it's obvious that better communication should take place, I see this as operational improvements to be made and not a fundamental failing. — Coren  00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse; due one of the AUSC cases affects me. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Wizardman 20:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. The situation is not ideal, but there is nothing to arbitrate. This is especially so since as Risker points out the report has been released, but would still be so if the report remained pending. It is worth noting that as an arbitrator, I would give credence and weight to community feedback about the subcommittee. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 17 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)

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

• 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)
• 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)