Revision as of 12:09, 28 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:

• Private mediation (with Hersfold and SirFozzie as facilitators)
• Arbcom election question
  • Question from FT2: FT2, Jehochman
  • Jehochman Q&A talk; a lot of comments were later revised and/or struck out (see history)
• User talk posts: FT2->Jehochman; Jehochman->FT2
• Uninvolved opinion sought (Alison) and second uninvolved opinion (Lar)
• Email discussion overseen by Lar, broken abruptly by Jehochman on the verge of conclusion (off-wiki)
• Arbitration Request filed by Jehochman, declined 28 November 2009 without prejudice against refile

RFC requires multiple users who tried to resolve the issue. The matters here were first admitted off-wiki and the on-wiki dialog lacked the key evidence, which was not accessible to onlookers, so almost no users 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.

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 (Nov. 2009):

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 (Nov. 2009):
(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.

Because of the scale of deliberate deception and abuse by an admin evidenced in this case (including gaming across two elections, two RFCs already and two RFARs), the Committee is asked to accept the case rather than refer it elsewhere.

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)

@ John Vandenberg:

1. So far as the arbs expressed any clear view for before or after New Year, Carcharoth asked "Should this not have been brought to the community or ArbCom earlier" and CoolHandLuke indicated "3 weeks" .
2. The RFC was referenced by Jehochman, I could hazard a guess but he'll know which one he means. It's unlikely for a user to admit to abusing a process they never had involvement in.
3. WP:RFC/U requires "two users (who) tried and failed to resolve the same dispute". Hersfold and SirFozzie were joint mediators; they aren't users who "tried and failed" - they are just facilitators for the parties in trying; they wouldn't count. Alison only opined on evidence, and Lar was asked to opine and ended up listening and facilitating. FT2  03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Durova: Cases near the end of the year often have the formal acceptance tally and/or the case opening kept open till January, for the Christmas season and to allow new arbs to vote and/or sit from the start if they wish (and I think also, departing arbs to be active if they wish as well). I wouldn't have a problem with doing so on this case. It's not in any rush. FT2  05:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Tznkai: The immediate on-wiki prompting incidents took place during the election itself, with subsequent directions being to suspend any genuine issue until the election was not an concern but (as best consensus was visible) not to delay them thereafter. FT2  07:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Roger: I'll be keeping all I can open and on-wiki. If for any reason I can't, I'll summarize/paraphrase/describe on-wiki and submit the original by email. I'll also apply commonsense, cc any off-wiki evidence to Jehochman, and (if needed) to Lar or Alison to ensure visible fair representation and accuracy. Sufficient :) ? FT2  19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Newyorkbrad: The underlying issues are aggressive deception and gaming, and breach of trust as an admin... and that's an ongoing pattern that was visible 18 months ago but is also visible right up to current times. Some evidence does go a long way back. Some (omitted here for brevity) shows similar actions during the months before the election. Some is recent. That's how it goes when there's a long term pattern of bad faith adminship.

Of about 21 unique sample diffs showing the behaviors, all but about 4 show Jehochman heavily engaged in similar behaviors again (ie, attacks/unfounded accusations/gaming the system/deception) at ACE2009 or later. The latest diffs showing clear continuation and yet more deception are from just November 25 - 26, shortly before the direction to suspend any genuine issues. FT2  20:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Vassyana: Quick summary of off-wiki dialog:

1. Mediation: Initially I had serious concerns about Jehochman's conduct and fitness as an administrator. Jehochman asked to discuss them and suggested seeking mediators. Skipping the mediation content, my concerns were unchanged.
2. Dialog with Lar: The subsequent dialog with Lar took place after considerable ACE2009 deception and gaming of privacy. At this point mid-election the behavior was more serious, intense, and actively ongoing (public denial/deception/smearing). With three admins now knowing the evidence, Jehochman finally began to discuss productively. It was understood and agreed this would lead to a formal RFC (due to seriousness) in which Jehochman would have to "own his actions". Clearly this would be damning in places. RFAR was the other option.
3. Jehochman's statement (below) is untruthful and incomplete: Following Jehochman's partial admissions (01:17 UTC Nov 24 ) all that remained was to draft and post the agreed RFC. This is where Jehochman begins to diverge from honesty again ("... gloating... waited and waited... never replied properly... responses were extremely offensive... That's why negotiations broke down."). In fact, Jehochman got a proper reply, acknowledged it, there was collegial light hearted dialog, no hint at all of offense taken, and the breakdown was via his own abrupt actions in the middle of collegial dialog. All this is hard evidenced. This was what happened after the on-wiki posts Jehochman refers to:
   1. on-wiki, 1:41 UTC The post Jehochman refers to, which more correctly reads: "A quick note between coffees... we have had productive discussion. I'll say more in a bit, but for now the private dialog is still ongoing" . Compare Jehochman's description of the post. This is where Jehochman's description breaks off, implying no proper followup.
   2. email, 01:56 UTC - Jehochman knew that the on-wiki response was a "holding note" - because I said so just 15 minutes later. I also stated the subsequent post would be "generous", would be posted "whenever's right", and "may well not be today". At that point I believed we were a handful of emails from the end.
   3. email, 02:11 UTC - I followed up with a good-faith removal edit "As a gesture of good faith..." .
   4. email, 02:35 UTC - Jehochman was not offended, in fact he was relaxed, and joking and laughing in email at the time, as here.
   5. email, 12:53 UTC - I post that I would draft the next agreed step, an RFC. Again working with Jehochman ("I'll post it here first, for review. I propose to ask all 4 of us who know about the case to endorse the final wording...")
   6. email, 14:39 UTC - Jehochman still fully engaged, discusses the RFC title in an amicable tone. This is already way past the posts whose non-followup (it's claimed) led to the breakdown.
   7. email, 15:51 UTC - I sent the draft RFC. Its tone and my own AGF may be judged by the header: "The community is asked to help conclude the case by reviewing these incidents (no longer in dispute), asking questions, and determining the final decision and conclusions that may be appropriate to put it to rest."
   8. multiple hostile emails starting 16:14 UTC - Jehochman's behavior abruptly and greatly darkened "out of nowhere". From joking and collegial he self-reversed, argued RFC was not needed or this was about others not him, and suddenly reverted to gaming, bad faith accusations, excuses, and conspiracy theories - for example that this was bad faith by Alison ("posted as a friend"), that it was a conspiracy with Elonka (" know how she operates..."), that it's "some sort of game", that it would do no good, and a torrent of other "left field" matters and reposting of discredited matters long discarded. I tried AGFing (Lar can confirm) but it did no good. I kept away to allow time for calming, and for he and Lar to discuss, but the next day to Lar and my surprise Jehochman filed an RFAR "out of the blue" instead. There had been no prior discussion leading to this.
4. That was the breakdown. Lar saw it too.

@ Carcharoth (2): I do not understand your comment. A user abuses on-wiki, it's affirmed off-wiki, after considerable dialog the user then apologizes on-wiki for bad-faith adminship. Far from stopping, the user has never really ceased bad faith deception in multiple separate incidents on-wiki. The user has also engaged in serious deception at more than one RFC. The evidence (most of which is on-wiki) is independently verifiable. RFAR seems appropriate at this point.

@ Bainer: It's multiple on-wiki incidents of gaming and abuse, some extreme, in different disputes and processes. It continues to the present. Resolution has been attempted via multiple steps, all failed, listed above. The off-wiki dialog discussed on-wiki misconduct. As multiple RFCs have been gamed by Jehochman already and "deliberate deceptions" have not ceased, there's a concern about the scope for formal review in any venue where off-wiki evidence of bad faith adminship can be kept out.

@ Rlevse: Confirming the old issues are mainly background, and evidence of the long term pattern. The actual arbitrable issue is a pattern of deliberate deception of the community, smear attacks, and "gaming the system", for "bad faith" reasons and personal advantage, at multiple recent (2009) matters. I recognize my wording was not clear on this. I ask this is noted as clarification.

Statement by John Vandenberg

what.the.. 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)

I have rewritten the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" section so that it is neutral information. John Vandenberg 07:07, 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)

Statement by Durova

Good grief, could we please have a holiday without a Jehochman RFAR? If this were meritless I'd ignore it, but it looks like if it opens I'd have to present evidence. Does this absolutely have to come to a head on Christmas Eve? If this is accepted I will not present evidence before January. Durova 02:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Things are making a little more sense now. Last month Jehochman tried to initiate an RFAR about his dispute with FT2, which was "dismissed without prejudice to refile" due to the upcoming election. Jehochman has posted in nowiki text that he will not be making a statement. Bishonen has no kind words for FT2, which is not surprising because in January she was formally admonished for attempting to block FT2 indefinitely while she was in a dispute with him. Although I am a strong supporter of formal dispute resolution attempts, bypassing conduct RfC would be understandable in this instance for two reasons: the role of offsite correspondence would make it impossible for the community to weigh the matter, and Jehochman initially requested the arbitration himself. In light of Jehochman's refusal to present a statement the arbitrators could take FT2's assertions at face value, but in my opinion this is spectacularly bad timing because the incoming arbitrators would have a case foisted upon them without a voice in its acceptance. Respectfully requesting that FT2 withdraw this filing. I hope it's possible to work things out amicably, but if not it could be restarted in 2010. Durova 05:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bishonen, none of us are mind readers. Usually, though, the individual who abides by policy is the one who has the calmer head. There is only one administrator in site history who has attempted to summarily siteban a sitting arbitrator. It might be best if she stepped back and considered that her own interpretations are not the most reliable on this matter, and do not reflect well on her. Durova 16:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, nobody "has been bending my ear" on this matter. It comes as a complete and unwelcome surprise. I think for myself. Durova 16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• To Newyorkbrad: the usual way ArbCom evaluates old behavior is to weigh it only if it is part of an ongoing pattern that includes recent behavior. To raise two examples from a previous case I would have proposed a topic ban on Cirt if he had resumed edit warring, but he put that old problem behind him. Jossi continued his old habits of wikihounding and disrupting featured article candidates within his conflict of interest, so it was relevant to demonstrate that he had been doing those same things for years. Alison is a very trustworthy person and her comments point to a continuation of a troublesome pattern. Durova 03:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

To Carcharoth: tweak by Bishonen

Not "ready to be read"? Come on, you know about FT2's tweaking, don't you? A more constructive approach on your part would surely be to ask FT2, right now, to shorten his statement, which is roughly two times too long. Or, since he has responded to John Vandenberg's clerkish request for a shorter statement by removing a mere three words, , the smart way to go might be to shorten it yourself, or ask a clerk to do so (and of course also to shorten any other overlong statements there might be). To keep this thing at least readable, you know? Without some such contrivance, I guarantee it won't be finished tomorrow. And I agree with Durova — except that I think it should come to a head and be rejected as promptly as possible, saving everybody's holidays. Bishonen | talk 03:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

• Comment to Durova. "Bishonen has no kind words for FT2, which is not surprising because in January she was formally admonished for attempting to block FT2 indefinitely while she was in a dispute with him." Oh, so that's why I have no kind words for FT2. I must be spectacularly touchy to those dumb "admonishments". Has somebody been bending your ear, Durova, or is that your own interpretation (including the supposed "dispute")? Could the incident you refer to have anything to do with why FT2 has so much resentment for me (and so much more interest in me than I have in him)? You may recollect that it had much more far-reaching consequences for him than for me ("admonished", bah). Bishonen | talk 12:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Statement by Tznkai

I'm actually doing things that are not Misplaced Pages for the most part, but I do feel compelled to say at least this:

Baptizing the new committee by fire as soon as possible is a stupid idea, and stupid tradition.--Tznkai (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Wehwalt

I don't have much of an opinion about the merits, but I would say this: cases arise when they arise. If Arb intervention is needed, it is needed. The wheels of ArbCom grind slowly, so if there's a case here, get on with it. If there isn't, then there isn't one regardless of the timing. The calendar should not be a consideration here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

One thing is clear, we have inappropriate behavior by someone. The $64,000 question is which one. Either Jehochman did what is described here, or FT2 has publicly slandered him more than once. Due to the nature of this situation Arbcom is the only apparatus that can deal with it, therefore Arbcom needs to handle this.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-statement by Jehochman

I will not participate in this theatre. If anybody has questions about my administrative actions, come to my talk page and ask me about them. Otherwise, there is nothing here but character aspersions and an apparent violation of WP:STICK. Insufficient benefits can be taken from investing your limited time in non-administrative matters that are 6 -24 months old, or recent questions and answers at the election which the electorate has already evaluated and voted upon. Please deal with something more pressing instead. Nothing changed since my request was filed and rejected, except that the campaign is over, so I am no longer concerned about the ongoing character aspersions. Feedback I have received from multiple parties during the election and recently is that I should ignore FT2 completely. So I am ignoring him. He can say whatever he pleases, and people can believe him or not. Thank you. Jehochman 16:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

@Vassyana: I issued statements to Elonka and FT2. Elonka's reply was derisive and contained false accusations. FT2's said he was going out to coffee, and to me read like he was gloating. I waited, and waited, but he never replied properly. To me, their responses were extremely offensive. That's why negotiations broke down. I regret entering into those lengthy discussions, because I feel that I was being played. The filing of this case on Christmas Eve, which has distracted me from family and enjoying the holiday, was needlessly inflammatory and offensive as well. The more that's said here, the more people will become angry with each other once again. Speedy rejection of this case would be best. I will have nothing further to do with FT2 or Elonka. That solves the problem as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned, because it takes at least two sides to have a fight, and I'm not participating. Jehochman 12:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by DuncanHill

The obscure references in the opening satement make it more clear than ever that the sooner we get rid of the ludicrous ban on quoting directly from emails the better. Better still, don't discuss Misplaced Pages matters off-wiki at all, little good and much harm usually comes of it. I have never had much faith in those who choose to take their problems off-wiki, and every case like this, which relies on evidence that cannot be presented to the community, just serves to confirm that mistrust. You've got a problem with anything on wikipedia? Say so on Misplaced Pages. DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And I'll add this, to hell with the consequences

Filing a request for case on Christmas Eve looks shitty, however well-intentioned the person doing it actually is. Arbs should reject on the basis of idiotic timing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Gladys J Cortez

Although filing the request the day before Christmas was maybe a case of spectacularly sub-par timing, I would hope the Arbs could overlook that; the best analogy I can give to this disagreement is to compare it to an iceberg. The on-wiki stuff is the only part we see, but there's much more under the surface, it sounds like--and when you're steering a ship and see an iceberg ahead, you don't care WHAT day it is; you take action to avoid the dangers. It's clear from the extensive on-wiki discussion that this dispute has indeed become a distraction and a disruption to the community, and also that the principals have been unable to hash it out amongst themselves. I don't think it matters who does or does not choose to participate; unless this gets resolved we'll be hearing bits and echoes from it every time any of the parties makes any decision at all, controversial or not. Best to deal with it now, before more of this animosity spills over onto other pages. GJC 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass

As it happens, I was considering making some sort of comment on this issue elsewhere, but since this RfAR has been filed, I might as well make it here. First of all, after seeing the charges made by FT2 and Alison against Jehochman during ACE2009, I was concerned enough to contact Jehochman to ask for a transcript of the emails in question. After reading them, I quickly came to the conclusion that there was no substance to the charges made, as in my view there are readily available alternative explanations for the statements made by Jehochman in the emails other than the bad faith interpretations made by FT2 and Alison. Having said that, I must say I was very disappointed to see Alison leap in to support the charges made by FT2 in ACE2009 without having the courtesy to at least first ask Jehochman in private for his own explanation. I think that ought to be done as a matter of course in such circumstances, in my opinion it was poor judgement by Alison not to do so and I hope that she will think twice before rushing to publicly condemn someone in such a hasty manner again.

I might add that I was also unimpressed by the means with which FT2 and Alison effectively sank Jehochman's candidacy, in making claims about alleged offsite misbehaviour that Jehochman was scarcely in a position to be able to refute (although he attempted to do so by opening a case at this page). Where I come from, that kind of tactic is usually labelled a smear, and there ought to be no place for such tactics on wikipedia.

It does seem to me however that in bringing this matter to RfAR, FT2 has simply lost his sense of perspective and is making a veritable mountain out of a molehill. Certainly I don't believe for a moment, even were arbcom to take this case, that it could possibly make any reliable finding of wrongdoing on Jehochman's part based on the evidence I have seen. But in the somewhat unlikely event that arbcom does decide to take on this case, I trust that the actions of both FT2 and Alison during ACE2009 will also be examined, as I think it would be undesirable to see a repeat of such tactics employed against any candidate in future elections. Gatoclass (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

Most of the issues involved in this case are stale. Despite the constantly increasing length of FT2's presentation, it does not make any of its points clearly. This applies in particular to the reply to Stephen Bain: "It's multiple on-wiki incidents of gaming and abuse, some extreme, in different disputes and processes." FT2 has not provided any support or diffs for these innuendos, which presumably underlie his request. Some editors might consider Jehochman's admin actions on wikipedia as inconsistent and whimsical: that might be one factor that influenced votes during two successive ArbCom elections. Those actions, while possibly irritating to some, are nevertheless within wikipedia norms of administrative behaviour. It is not something that ArbCom can or should pronounce upon. If this case concerns events surrounding Elonka's actions one and a half years's ago, that is quite stale. Elonka has just returned to editing after a six month wikibreak and those events should not be re-examined at this stage. Grudges or grievances generated by off-wiki communications have nothing at all to do with this encyclopedia. FT2 has not given a detailed list of any specific administrative actions of Jehochman that he finds problematic. Presumably, if they were serious, he or other editors would have addressed them at the time. If this case is solely about off-wiki communications and interpersonal disputes, as appears to be the case at present, ArbCom should reject the request. Mathsci (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Moreschi

Put briefly: arbcom is here to arbitrate actual disputes, not to act as some sort of HR committee dealing with inter-admin wikipolitical catfights. A "hidden history of abuse" is simply not within arbcom's purview (and I have no idea how such a thing could be proved anyway). A genuine case would revolve around specific incidents in Jehochman's admin logs, and this may well be feasible - I wouldn't know, having missed out on most of 2009. But as it is, this should not be accepted.

More generally, Jehochman can be abrasive, and certainly I wouldn't like everyone to know how I talk off-wiki either. FT2 can lose his sense of perspective, and the bewildered comments of various arbitrators last time around (along the lines of "why is this wasting so much of everyone's time - including functionaries' time?") still hold true. Not a good combination, and I can see how problems have developed between the two. Arbcom is not therapy, however.

As a side-note, this tweaking from FT2 simply has to stop. It started off as an amusing quirk, descended into a minor nuisance, and is fast developing into outright esoterrorism. We have the preview button for a reason. Use it. Moreschi (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jtrainor

Boy, is this ever some stupid crap. Can't you two just agree to avoid each other or something? FT2, seriously, GO OUTSIDE. Jtrainor (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/1/4)

• 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. 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Thank you Bishonen. No need to tweak me. My initial comment was my way of expressing exasperation with FT2's tweaking, but obviously I was too dead-pan there. Really, FT2 should have prepared a statement before coming here, and tweaked it to his satisfaction before filing the request. And if that is not clear enough: I am saying that extensive tweaking of a request is not a good thing. Decide what you want to say and say it. Don't do the wiki equivalent of umm-ing and ahh-ing. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Have been following this, and am declining. It seems to me that FT2 is pushing a bit too hard here to have something done, when it is still not clear what this is about. It appears to be FT2 saying that because he thinks something should be done (based on private evidence that has not been systematically reviewed by us), that we should accept a case. It should be possible to say in a brief statement why a case should be accepted - it should not need a long statement and multiple responses to everyone else commenting. I would suggest that if anything further is done (e.g. an RFC) that FT2 not be the one to initiate it - we need clarity and precision here, which is not what we are getting at the moment. If there are developments later in the year, it should be possible to make a clearer case either way. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Further brief response: agree with Mathsci and Gatoclass. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Nobody should feel obliged to interrupt their planned activities to comment here over the coming few days; many are traveling or spending time with family over this Christmas weekend, a time of year where most people place their priorities on their off-wiki lives. I don't plan to make a decision on whether or not to accept this matter until late on December 26th at the earliest. Risker (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I too will give this a couple of days before looking at the issues. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if the parties keep their statements short and to the point, with a minimum of on-going tweaking. Please also try to keep this on-wiki: only geninely private matters should be raised with ArbCom by email and emailed material not meeting this criterion is likely to be politely ignored.  Roger Davies 06:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline: I don't see a current issue here than couldn't be more sensibly resolved by other less drama-inducing means (like the main protagonists not rising to the bait and ignoring each other, for example).  Roger Davies 05:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment; for logistical reasons, this request should be held open for a couple of days with no action: the new arbitrators are taking their seat as we speak and it would be reasonable to let them opine given they are likely to end up with an eventual case, and the holidays slow things down because many editors are with family rather than online. — Coren  16:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Recuse I've made my statement above. SirFozzie (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, at least tentatively. It took me a great deal of time when this matter was first brought here to figure out what the underlying dispute was actually about, and I'm still not sure I'm entirely clear. However, the original events underlying this request appear to be more than a year old, and thus, do not present a live dispute to arbitrate. The fact that the parties later disagreed with each other's characterizations of the earlier dispute on election pages does not mean that we have an ongoing dispute once again. I'm open to persuasion as further statements are submitted, but at the moment, I don't see how devoting the substantial time and attention that this case would draw would assist either the encyclopedia or the community. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Similar to other arbs, it will be a few days before I offer a formal decline or accept. If this should be declined, convince me that the matters at hand do not rise to the level of arbitration need or can be handled by the community. If this should be accepted, convince me that there is a substantive case to be examined that cannot be handled at the community level and needs to be dealt with by the Arbitration Committee. One point I'm particularly interested in hearing is how and why private mediation and discussion efforts broke down. Also, I'd be keen to hear from Alison and Lar. As a general comment, we do need to take into account the holidays and allow interested or involved parties time to note and comment on this request. On the same note, even if accepted this case should not open until January 2. Vassyana (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Reject. It is apparent that one or both of the parties are unwilling or unable to either discuss matters like adults, bury the hatchet, or else use the proper dispute resolution process (which does not involve starting with arbitration as the first step). There is also the question of whether private communications between editors off-wiki are even justiciable here (as opposed to editors importing a personal dispute on-wiki, which is). And to address the inevitable reply: FT2 disavows the possibility of initiating a request for comment due to the unlikelihood of there being anyone able to certify a request over this particular incident, but also refers to "a hidden history of improper actions". Are we to understand that by "a hidden history of improper actions" you mean this one incident, and not any other actions? --bainer (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. While I see reasons to reject this (such as the core Elonka matters were 1.5 years ago, nor does she seem to be part of the off wiki discussions, though she did make stmts during the 2009 ACE); I also see reasons to accept, which are basically that there is indeed something going on here on one side or the other, though I'm not totally sure what (cf the diff above on the RFAR Jehochman filed just one month ago). I agree that if there is a case to arbitrate, the case should be filed, but this filing was no so urgent that it had to be filed on Christmas Eve when it's known the the party(ies) are in all likelihood people for whom Christmas is a major holiday. I share Bainer's concerns too about the email evidence but that can be handled privately if need be. FT2's constant tweaking of postings needs to stop too. It'd be better to make subsequent posts below the original one or to make a final draft before posting. Bottom line is that I think something serious is going on here and the sooner we nip it, the better. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 27 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)

Response to Carcharoth's of 23 December 2009 This is using a huge sledgehammer for a tiny nut. It is moving to the second stage before we have looked at the first. I invite you to look at my contributions since the ban. My talkpage gives an indication of the positive interactions and contributions since that time. My case allows arbcom to set a very simple precedent: a user should not be topic banned while blocked and unable to present a case. Can you tell me a reason why this path would not be acceptable to you? As I have said many times. The ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. I am trying to streamline this for everyone's sake. Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rlevse I'm worried that you may not have fully understood my position. The two track solution I am proposing will save a lot of work. Of course I can provide evidence (if necessary in the second stage). To phrase my case another way if you like, the first track can assume for the purpose of the exercise that the ban was validly applied. Then the question is whether my contributions since then are of a quality to have the ban removed or modified. The evidence for this is all on my talkpage. What is wrong, for example, with lifting the ban with the proviso that it can be reapplied immediately if needed? I'd appreciate your response to this. Kevin McCready (talk) 23:51, 27 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 (1/3/1/1)

• 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. Mccready, that's something you need to include here. Risker (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Mccready, 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)
• Decline: If McCready can't supply evidence now as to why this was not a community ban, I do not see the reason to open a full case. He was asked to do so by Risker and did not supply an answer that cleared up this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

@McCready-I see no reason for a custom made case, there's no reason you can't say "It's not community based because (1-2 sentences) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Decline I've been following this for some time and see no grounds for a case as currently framed.  Roger Davies 05:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)