Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:33, 14 May 2007 view sourceFormer user 2 (talk | contribs)7,183 edits →Statement by []← Previous edit Revision as of 14:56, 14 May 2007 view source John Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 30: Line 30:
// END TEMPLATE - copy text above, but not this line // --> // END TEMPLATE - copy text above, but not this line // -->
Slightly modifying the default template for ease in determining who is involved. Slightly modifying the default template for ease in determining who is involved.

=== Bus stop ===
: '''Initiated by ''' ] '''at''' 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

==== Involved parties ====
*{{userlinks|Bus stop}}
*{{userlinks|warlordjohncarter}}
*{{userlinks|Cleo123}}
*{{userlinks|Scottperry}}
*{{userlinks|Demong}}
*{{userlinks|C.Logan}}
*{{userlinks|JJay}}
*{{userlinks|ObiterDicta}}
*{{userlinks|Metzenberg}}

(substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator)

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]

; Confirmation that other steps in ] have been tried
*Request for mediation - ]
*Request for comment - ] and ]
==== Statement by ] ====
A user who has already been blocked twice for editing to content regarding ] and his inclusion on the ] is continuing to use the talk page of that article to repeat his statement that in his belief the party in question does not qualify for inclusion in the article. That user has been repeatedly asked to substantiate in any way his justification for these statements, and has yet to provide in the eyes of the other editors involved (myself included - simply indicating that I may have a preexisting bias) any coherent argument based on policy and guidelines to support it. That user, ], has also specifically denigrated all parties who disagree with his position in language such as "Stop pretending he converted to Christianity" , despite editors repeatedly providing sourced, verifiable information to that effect, explicitly stating that the parties who disagree with him, including those who have responded to a request for comment are part of "an extremely small clique" who have a "clear agenda" relative to the Christianity project , and a variety of other accusations at least bordering on personal attacks on those parties who disagree with him. This party has also recently nominated the article for deletion on the basis of his disagreement with its content, been the only party who was directly involved in a recent request for mediation ] on the subject to not agree to such arbitration, and has explicitly described on his own user page his interest in this subject being an "obsession". It has been called to my attention on my talk page that it is possible to block certain editors from repeated posts on the same page. As several parties in this discussion have already indicated to this user that he never directly responds to any arguments made against him, but for the most part simply repeats his statement which has already been answered by others, I was wondering whether it might be possible to either limit the number of times he can post to the articles per day and/or to perhaps block him from editing the ] and ] entirely. He does seem to, according to others, engage in more constructive contributions elsewhere, so I don't think a total block or ban is necessarily appropriate. However, he has clearly already displayed less than complete objectivity in this matter. ] 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
==== Statement by {party 2} ====

==== Clerk notes ====
: (This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
*

----


=== Miskin === === Miskin ===

Revision as of 14:56, 14 May 2007

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Sabotage of Lindy Li's page   26 December 2024 0/0/0
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

Slightly modifying the default template for ease in determining who is involved.

Bus stop

Initiated by John Carter at 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

(substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Bus stop, Cleo123, Scottperry, Demong, C.Logan, JJay, ObiterDicta, Metzenberg

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:Warlordjohncarter

A user who has already been blocked twice for editing to content regarding Bob Dylan and his inclusion on the List of notable converts to Christianity is continuing to use the talk page of that article to repeat his statement that in his belief the party in question does not qualify for inclusion in the article. That user has been repeatedly asked to substantiate in any way his justification for these statements, and has yet to provide in the eyes of the other editors involved (myself included - simply indicating that I may have a preexisting bias) any coherent argument based on policy and guidelines to support it. That user, User:Bus stop, has also specifically denigrated all parties who disagree with his position in language such as "Stop pretending he converted to Christianity" here, despite editors repeatedly providing sourced, verifiable information to that effect, explicitly stating that the parties who disagree with him, including those who have responded to a request for comment here are part of "an extremely small clique" who have a "clear agenda" relative to the Christianity project here, and a variety of other accusations at least bordering on personal attacks on those parties who disagree with him. This party has also recently nominated the article for deletion on the basis of his disagreement with its content, been the only party who was directly involved in a recent request for mediation here on the subject to not agree to such arbitration, and has explicitly described on his own user page his interest in this subject being an "obsession". It has been called to my attention on my talk page that it is possible to block certain editors from repeated posts on the same page. As several parties in this discussion have already indicated to this user that he never directly responds to any arguments made against him, but for the most part simply repeats his statement which has already been answered by others, I was wondering whether it might be possible to either limit the number of times he can post to the articles per day and/or to perhaps block him from editing the Bob Dylan and List of notable converts to Christianity entirely. He does seem to, according to others, engage in more constructive contributions elsewhere, so I don't think a total block or ban is necessarily appropriate. However, he has clearly already displayed less than complete objectivity in this matter. John Carter 14:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {party 2}

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

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

Miskin

Initiated by ⇒ SWATJester at 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Commenting parties


(substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a party is an administrator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Miskin, Mardavich, Dbachmann, Sam Blacketer,Alison.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Swatjester

Incident started when I recieved an email from an aggrieved user, as well as a talk page message from Mardavich. Among other things, I was directed to the 3RR report on Miskin, which closed as "no vio" (mistakenly). I planned to correct Sam Blacketer's mistake, and give a cursory 24hr block for 3RR vio; upon block log review, I saw that Miskin had received several 3RR blocks, and blocks for disruptive editing/page moving; six blocks in total. They were all on the same topics: related to ancient Greece, Persia, Macedonia, etc. This fit in line with the 3RR request, and, given the extensive prior block history, I determined that Miskin was well aware of 3RR policy and intentionally chose to violate it. Given the priors, I extended my block to 1 month. (Perfectly reasonable considering blocks escalate: 24hr->48hr->1 week-> multiple weeks/month->year or longer) Sam Blacketer later agreed with the found violation. I should note now, that whether or not there were 4 reversions or not is of no consequence: WP:3RR allows for blocks with less than 4 reverts, and for partial reverts. Whether or not the 3RR was broke is indisputable: it was clearly broken.

In the email I received, I was warned that Miskin has "several admins in his pocket", some of who were named directly, and I was told that he would undoubtedly be unblocked immediately.

Dbachmann unblocked Miskin after I went to sleep, without consulting me first. I brought this up on AN/I for block review, which shows a wide, overwhelming array of support for the block, and a handful of editors disagreeing with either the block in general, or in some cases, the length. In compromise, Alison reblocked for 1 week, minus the 12 hours or so already spent. Newyorkbrad at first indicated intent to unblock, then stated that the consensus was towards remaining blocked.

I'm upset that despite the weight of WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK policy on my side, the block was undone without any sort of discussion. Miskin has a long history of disruptive editing, and contentious edits on the Ancient Greek/Macedonia area. I urge ArbCom to look at TWO distinct issues here:

  • The reasonableness of inital block length, and the subsequent unblocking without consultation, given the allegations from the email; and
  • Review of the disruptive editing habits of Miskin, including personal attacks, and 3RR violations.

This whole discussion is beginning to turn bitter and vitriolic, especially given the inexplicable behavior by Dbachmann, including allegations that I'm "a newbie admin throwing his weight around", and that I was playing some sort of "bad cop" routine. This seems like a colossal failure to assume good faith, something that a fellow administrator should know better by now. The tone of Dbachmann's response in this statement, being entirely incivil and inflammatory, further strengthens my argument.⇒ SWATJester 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Miskin

On the 3RR

As I have pointed out many times in the past, I was consciously not edit-warring during my second and third reverts and I did not make a fourth revert in that article. User:Dharmender6767, a new user with no understanding of WP:POLICY, had been edit-warring all morning on May 11 and I had chosen not to participate . I made my first revert when User:AlexanderPar showed support for User:Dharmender6767 by reverting to his version (despite blatant NPOV violations and editor consensus that were involved). At that point, my conscious participation in the edit-war (regarding my first revert) aimed at showing group preference and editor consensus . Note that unlike other users, User:AlexanderPar had not participated in discussion up to that point, yet he had chosen to start reverting to the version of his preference and enforce User:Dharmender6767's disruptive behaviour (which some have called trolling). On the other hand I had been discussing this matter for days and had come to an agreement with various established, non-partisan users, hence my edit-summary "back to Raider - please participate in the ongoing discussion". All of this can be verified in the article's talk page, as well as my contribution list.

By that afternoon User:Dharmender6767 had, despite multiple 3RR warnings, broken 3RR in at least two articles and found himself listed under 3RR. It had become evident to everybody that he was not to be regarded as a serious contributor. The only user who had showed support for his edits was User:AlexanderPar, who, as I've already stated, had never participated in the article's Talk page up to that point (Dharmender had). On my second revert I was under the impression that User:Dharmender had already been blocked and that the rv-war had ended. My sole aim was to prevent having the article protected to a "bad" version while clear editor consensus was in favour of a different one. This was not intended as a participation to edit-warring and I tried to make this as clear as possible in my edit summary: "I'm only reverting so that the article won't get locked to the bad version". I waited until Dharmender was definitely blocked and after exactly 20 minutes I restored the "good" version one more time. This revert was done for the exact same reason as before, i.e. to keep up the consensus version in case of a possible article protection. There was no need to have the article protected because of a sole editor's disruptive behaviour, let alone having it protected to the bad version (it would actually going to show that disruptive behaviour may have an impact in wikipedia). As my edit summary reveals I had no intention of edit-warring: "with dharmender blocked the edit-war is over, so I'm likewise restoring the good version in case a protection is put". This is as far as my three reverts go. I did make three reverts, yet only one of them was part of an actual edit-war, and even that one was made within reason (the editor had not participated in our lengthy discussion). Despite all accusations from involved editors like User:AlexanderPar, I did not participate in the edit-war that they instigated. It is at the least ironic to find myself punished, judged, and humiliated in such manner. One thing that should be noted is AlexanderPar's cunning behaviour. He awaited for other users to "waste" their reversions on Darmender's trolling, giving them the false impression that he had stopped supporting him. He then suddenly reappeared and reverted to his preferred non-consensus version, knowing that no-one would be able to contest him for another 24 hours.

His strategy was successful. All of a sudden more editors (belonging to a specific culture/ethnicity) showed up in order to offer support to the version of their preference, which involved undisputed NPOV violations. As a reaction to this, I felt that the only way of protecting NPOV would be to invite more non-partisan editors. Thus I left messages to a handful of editors and admins whom I knew to be familiar/interested in the topic at hand. At that point provokative statements were made against me in the Talk page, allegedly accusing me for "inviting my friends" (something that was amazingly believed later by Swatjester). The greatest irony in this was the fact that the editors of the opposing party were all known partisans of a specific pro-X ethnicity, while the rest of the editors were of mixed/irrelevant background, albeit familiar with ancient history topics. It was as if they were trying to stop me from involving more uninvolved editors. At that point two things were obvious to me:

  • The dispute's outcome was no longer decidedable by a clear editor consensus
  • The group of newcomers who supported Dharmender and AlexanderPar did not see NPOV as a priority (my queries in the talk page remained unanswered)

With that in mind I decided to start making fresh edits, in hopes of reaching a compromise solution between the opposing parties. I started by rewriting the fields in the infobox - which was by the way presented as an alleged fourth "partial revert". What was regarded as a fourth partial revert by Swatjester was in reality but a simple edit, largely attempting to make a compromise. I urge the arbitrators to make a comparison between the version of the undisputed three reverts and the version of the alleged fourth "partial revert" . This edit was of course reverted. Further proof that this edit was intended as a compromise would be next day's edit which was a copy-edit in the head, i.e. a part of the article . It can be also seen that I was the first person to reassume good faith and bring this up in Talk. On the other hand AlexanderPar reached three reverts, all by conscious edit-war participation, without having offered prior input to the article's talk page.

On Swatjester's decision and AnI

On the next day I was puzzled to find myself blocked. The admin (swatjester) had not provided any concrete reasons for the block, as if it had been about something fairly obvious. I initially assumed that there had been a mistake, an IP confusion or something of the sort. I found out what actually went on when I visited swatjester's Talk page. The "group" of editors in question (whom I have confronted in several articles) had wanted me out of the picture and swatjester was manipulated to be used as their proxy. After my block was put, I found myself getting judged and accused in AnI for irrelevant things, mainly in reference to my 3RR violations and disruptive behaviour that occurred in 2005, when I was admittedly an innexperienced, passionate editor with a poor understanding of WP:POLICY and its spirit. Some of those blocks were borderline cases and were removed, however that doesn't change the fact that I had consciously put myself in borderline situations. This is true for all 6 blocks I've received, _except_ the block of September 2006 which had no basis whatsoever (unilateral moves?) and was removed without prior thinking. Hence why I'm not counting it. I have repeatedly urged Swatjester to go through my contributions and find the last time I came close to edit warring, or even the last time I surpassed two reverts in 24 hours. He failed to find something. Similarly, I urge people like Guy who is accusing me below for being "a disruptive edit warrior whose behaviour continues despite numerous blocks" to do the same, i.e. find me those instances of recent disruptive editing and edit-warring. If it is so obvious as they claim, then it shouldn't be so hard to prove it with some diffs. If they also fail to do so, then I would like to ask from them to refrain from making baseless accusations. Same goes for User:Ryan Postlethwaite. I have expressed my feelings on this matter in my talkpage . I find accusations about "admins in backpockets" very serious I would like to ask from the arbitrators not only to investigate those allegations (maybe by examining the content-dispute at hand), but also to hold the accusators responsible of their words. And this of course includes editors like User:Mardavich who deliberately spread those baseless rumours, as well as editors like User:Swatjester and User:Ryan Postlethwaite who have been so easily manipulated into believing it.

I must admit that in the beginning of this debate I was disappointed about two things:

  • How easily nationalist coalitions can manipulate admin opinion in order to breach NPOV
  • How unorganised and inefficient the AnI can be

Regardless, I initially didn't hold any grudges against Swatjester, despite the fact that he made it seem as if I had wronged him in a past life. I thought he had been manipulated by User:Mardavich and his associates (via email of course) into thinking that he was doing the right thing. I still believe that this is the case, however, after having witnessed the endorsement of "backpocket admins" allegations and other out-of-order statements , I just think that he's simply too dangerous to be an administrator. All that he gains in passion and good will is negatively compensated by his bad judgement and lack of common sense. Miskin 12:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Dbachmann

original issue: Miskin (talk · contribs) was tempted into a fourth revert by Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs) (trolling account since blocked by Dmcdevit), which earned him a block of one month from Swatjester (talk · contribs), together with a warning that "Your disruptive editing will no longer be tolerated: the next block will be permanent".

This sorry story is an epic feat in the art of escalation on the part of Swatjester, turning a minor trolling incident into a frustrating shouting match. My take on it is summarized here. I am ready to believe that Swatjester in best faith believes that Misplaced Pages needs bad cops and manly decision-makers, but this very case proves him wrong. My gripe is that he keeps misstating the particulars in spite of better knowledge. I never "unblocked" Miskin, I shortened his block to the original 24 hours, which was an arguable penalty. My unblock wasn't "out of process" or "wheel warring", I reacted to {{unblock}} request as an uninvolved party, and immediately notified the blocking admin, advising him to take the matter to AN/I if he disagreed. Which he did, notably without notifying me, or without mentioning my concerns in his request entitled block review regarding "admins in troublesome user's back pocket", but instead of leaving it at that, he turned the incident into a matter of personal honour of bringing his felon to justice, harping ("REPEATEDLY") on Miskin having a history of disruptive editing back in 2005. Swatjester's block of Miskin wasn't Miskin's "SEVENTH" block for disruption as he puts it. As I established here, there were five previous blocks, three of them revoked before expiration, amounting to a total block time served of 56 hours, the last block, lasting for all of 38 minutes for "unilateral moves", dating to last September. This simply isn't the profile of the disruptive troll Swatjester wants to insist his chosen victim irredeemably is.

Swatjester's colossal failure to de-fuse, de-escalate, and acknowledge his mistakes does not bode well for his future admin career. I recognize his second RFA in February received near-unanimous support, but his recent actions prove the severe concerns expressed in his first one were only too justified. Taking this to RfAr in a huff is just a further show of unrestrained temper. dab (𒁳) 09:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sam Blacketer

(The first two paragraphs are a copy of what I wrote on the Administrators' Noticeboard)

Investigating this potential 3RR violation is by now making my ears bleed. When I closed the initial report it seemed to me that the central 'approach' issue in Miskin's reverts was whether the Battle of the Persian Gate should reflect the Encyclopaedia Iranica or the 'western consensus', with Miskin a supporter of the 'western consensus'. He had three clear reverts, but the edit at 18:44 looked more like a compromise: it demoted the 25,000 to 40,000 estimate to merely being "the western consensus" rather than stated as fact. For that reason, and the fact that I don't believe the 3RR should ever be used to stop editors being bold and trying to find a compromise, I held the 18:44 edit not to be a revert and closed as no violation (although Miskin was clearly sailing close to the wind).

Following that reasoning, I think the 10:21 edit was a revert, because the effect of it was to elevate the 'western consensus' about when casualties were inflicted into a clear factual statement in the article, in line with Miskin's previous reverts. For this reason there was a 3RR violation. I think that a 1 month was extreme, because Miskin's block history shows no 3RR blocks since 2005, and I disagree with SwatJester's comment in the block log that Miskin has "clearly no intent of editing constructively". He is a combative and forceful editor but he was discussing on the talk page throughout.

This case seems to have developed more into a discussion of administrative actions and the circumstances under which one admin can reverse the actions of another, and I think this may be a more productive line of inquiry (although the ArbCom has addressed it in other cases before). I'm not on any particular side in it. It may be worth drawing to attention (a) the fact SwatJester did not 'consult' me before blocking for one month, but told me he had done so; (b) Miskin has only twice had a block that was not commuted or cancelled, but they have been by different Admins; (c) no admin has stepped in to unblock for this violation, except Alison who commuted to 1 week (still a relatively long block) in line with community consensus. Another interesting issue in this case is the extent to which a block history dating from 18 months ago should be taken into account in determining behaviour now, and in this context I think SwatJester and JzG have (in different ways) overstated how problematic an editor Miskin really is. Sam Blacketer 11:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Christopher Parham

I don't believe Swatjester's block length, or his approach to Miskin in general, was appropriate. Miskin has thousands of article and article talk edits in the 17 months since his substantial troubles in December 2005. All indications developed so far are that, after a rude awakening, he is attempting to work constructively and within guidelines, and has until now mainly succeeded. Swatjester reacted to a relatively minor 3RR violation by blocking for one month and indicating that a further violation would result in an indefinite block. Threatening an indefinite block on a long-term, generally constructive user for two 3RR violations in the last 18 months or more seems very excessive. The block summary described Miskin as having "clearly no intent of editing constructively." Given Miskin's 18 months of generally acceptable behavior and thousands of article edits, this seems a highly inappropriate and unfair statement.

Thus I believe Dbachmann's assertion that Swatjester is "throwing his weight around" is understandable. At the very least, Swatjester employed WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK in a way actively detrimental to the best interests of the encyclopedia, alienating a generally constructive editor through the highly mechanical employment of escalating blocks. The fact that between applying an initial 3RR block and then extending it, Swatjester took a mere two minutes (5:55 to 5:57, see block log). I don't believe this is indicative of a thoughtful approach to blocking a long-term contributor for one month -- two minutes seems a short time to decide that someone with 7000 edits has no intent to improve the encyclopedia. I think it is indicative of a mechanical escalation that while perhaps common, produced an unhelpful result in this case. Dbachmann's failure to contact Swatjester before commuting part of the block is mitigated by the extreme nature of the initial block and block summary.

As for arbitration I do not see a basis for such at the moment. No significant dispute resolution has been attempted in either the edit wars which produced the problem or the recent dispute over the block. Miskin needs further improvement in his demeanor and editing practices, but I think that forgetting this incident, which caused significant understandable exacerbation, is the best first step in that process. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Guy

SWATjester clearly failed in his duties as an administrator here: before blocking a prolific edit warrior with a long history of blocks for disruptive revert warring, one must first fill out Form 22356b in triplicate, submit the pink copies with form ADM996/02 to the Cabal, raise the issue on the Village Pump/Indulgences craved by humble admins and wait the statutory three months before assuming consensus exists to block a disruptive edit warrior whose behaviour continues despite numerous blocks.

Oh, wait, was that a tiny bit sarcastic?

Question 1: Is Miskin's editing practice a problem? Hell yes, some times at least. Has he learned from the numerous blocks and comments he's received about this? Hell no. No, that's unfair: he has learned some, but still sometimes reverts to type. So: ArbCom may have a job to do here. It is quite likely that a revert parole at least is in order, and perhaps some kind of article parole. Yes, Miskin is causing disruption and needs someone whose authority he is willing to accept to correct the problem.

Question 2: Was SWATjester's response to the latest bit of edit-warring problematic? Not especially. Maybe a week would have been uncontroversial, maybe some would dispute it altogether, but prolific edit warriors blocked for edit warring is not exactly an example of rouge admin abuse. At worst it's an honest mistake in the heat of the moment. If it is indeed a mistake, which is open to debate.

So. I'd say there is a problem to be fixed here, and some of those above seem to have misidentified it. We do accommodate problematic but on balance positive editors, like Giano, and I have no reason to believe Miskin's behaviour is unfixable, but he is clearly not an unproblematic editor. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I think Miskin's block log speaks for itself on a number of issues, regardless of when the blocks have been imposed, he is an edit warrer, he knows the consequences of his actions and knows that it will lead to a block. SWATjester's resonse to another 3RR violation was to block for a month, possibly a tad excessive, but certainly understandable given the circumstances. What the community has now settled on is a 1 week block which almost all agree is the correct action - therefore this request could seam moot. However, there are a couple of issues which the committee may wish to look at: Firstly, Miskin's conduct throughout hhis time here with the possibility of putting him on revert parole - I think this may be required here. Secondally, and perhaps the most serious, now I quote, Miskin seems to have "admins in his back pocket" and they seam all to willing to step up and unblock Miskin the minute he get's into trouble, I would suggest that ArbCom look at the conduct of these administrators (if there is firm evidence of who is responsible). Ryan Postlethwaite 11:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Cool Cat

I am here because I was prompted to. I haven't conducted an investigation nor am I aware of the edit behaviour of the users involved at this point so I am more than disqualified to actually comment in a meaningful manner. However, I feel User:Miskin should be unblocked so he can participate in this discussion. -- Cat 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by commenting Ghirla

I confess to have never seen Miskin before yesterday but I tend to give credence to Dbachmann's characterization of him as a productive editor who made some mistakes in the distant past. I was prompted to decry the original month-long block for two simple reasons:

1. I was taken aback by this edit summary, which seem to have contained elements of baiting. One of Miskin's opponents apparently characterized him as an inveterate troublemaker in an e-mail to the blocking admin, which resulted in this controversial block. I don't believe that decisions about blocks of long-standing contributors are supposed to be taken as a result of private communications in a spirit of secrecy and obfuscation.

2. Several commentators on WP:ANI were keen to justify the block by allusions to Miskin's apparently "dirty" log. I urge the arbitrators to comment on the developing practice of appeals to block logs. When someone cited Miskin's positive contributions, he was told that it does not matter. On the other hand, negative contributions are taken into account and remain a permanent stain. I assure you that I'm not the only one who fails to understand why an unfairly smeared block log should remain a "permanent record." Please clarify. --Ghirla 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ploutarchos

Hello. To my understanding this is how the events unfolded:

Miskin was reported for violating the 3RR. The first admin to decide the case decided that it was not worth blocking him. Swatjester then turns up and decides that he will block Miskin for one month for the purported 3RR violation and claims that Miskin has"clearly no intent of editing constructively". Swatjester came into this after a bit of forum shopping against the original decision and a purported e-mail. Regarding the e-mail, God knows what was written in it, but it was obviously pure poison (and likely contained plenty of blatant lies too), so as to cause Swatjester to take action in the unproportionate, abrasive, bully-like and perhaps even fanatical way he did. As for who the sender was, we are not told, although I have a pretty shrewd idea myself of who it was.

I strongly disagree with Swatjester's handling of the issue. Miskin has not been blocked for violating the 3RR since 2005. He has been more active since then without violating the 3RR; in my view that does not constitute proof that Miskin had "clearly no intent of editing constructively" (as Swatjester puts it). I suspect the influence of that e-mail here; as far as I can tell, Swatjester's view does not emerge from the facts. That one month block was totally out of proportion, considering it was inflicted without warning on a user who had not been blocked for violating the 3RR in 17 months. Claims of aggravating elements are not to be taken seriously IMO - Miskin's conduct on that page was no worse than that of any other editor there. That sudden one month block was so ridiculous that it was obvious from that start that t would eventually get overturned and it came as no surprise to me that that was the outcome of Miskin's appeal (adding the unblock template). Questions posed by Swatjester over the legitimacy of this action resulted in this dispute.

There's much more for me to say, but it has already been covered by other editors, so there's no reason to flood this page further.

Requests to the committee
  1. It is my firm belief that AlexanderPar (talk · contribs · block log) is a sockpuppet of a user banned from editing Iran-related articles in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman, probably SouthernComfort (talk · contribs · block log). I consider this issue relevant as AlexanderPar was a participant in the edit war which got Miskin blocked. Resources controlled by the committee such as temporary restoration of deleted evidence and IP checks will be necessary for this.
  2. Could the committee issue guidelines on how to interpret certain ambiguities in policy, such as the status of open proxy edits, edits by banned users (including those on partial/topic bans), edits made in violation of a revert parole etc for the purposes of assessing a 3RR violation. This issue was raised by me (and heavily disputed) during the discussions and a definitive answer by the committee could be useful in future cases.

Clerk notes

Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. Newyorkbrad 08:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Added Miskin's statement from his talk page. Thatcher131 13:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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

PalestineRemembered

Initiated by Wooyi at 00:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
I have informed both parties here and here.

Statement by Wooyi

I am not personally involved in this case, however, I spotted Misplaced Pages:Community sanction noticeboard#PalestineRemembered again. The initiating administrator, Jayjg, was eager to ban the user PalestineRemebered because Jayjg alleged PR has inserted fraud and deception to Misplaced Pages articles relating to Israel/Palestine. However, there are many disputes about the allegations, and the things are a lot more complicated than the scope of WP:CN. Some editors there suggest ArbCom investigation into this matter. The discussion now is starting to be an ugly mess. I urge ArbCom to investigate and give a just decision.

Addendum: The comments below by editors from both sides, either advocating the ArbCom to take or not take the case, actually demonstrate the need for ArbCom to investigate. Things appear that there is even a personal feud between several established, longtime editors. Wooyi 02:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisO

I concur with Wooyi's referral (I am also not personally involved in the case). The allegations against PalestineRemembered are essentially ones of POV-pushing, incivil editing conduct and falsification of sources. There is certainly a case for PalestineRemembered to answer here, though in my judgment credible counter-arguments have been made on at least some of the allegations. Unfortunately the community's ability to resolve this matter is seriously hampered by the partisan edit wars on articles relating to this case and the direct involvement of the initiating administrator in clashes with PalestineRemembered. Some users have already raised questions about the fairness and transparency of the proposed community sanctions against PR (I make no judgment on that point, but I note the presentational difficulties it raises). I believe that a review by the Committee is the only way a satisfactory resolution to this matter is going to be found. -- ChrisO 01:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I see no reason why this problem can't be resolved within the community. A ban is almost certain to result soon if this fellow doesn't change his ways. --Tony Sidaway 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jayjg

I brought User:PalestineRemembered to WP:AN/I board after a long history of violations of various Misplaced Pages policies, such that he has been blocked for a total of four months out of his entire seven month editing history. User:PalestineRemembered is a self-admitted Single Purpose Account who has been quite open about his agenda; soon after returning from the most recent block he inserted material into an article which seriously misrepresented his sources. A discussion on banning him commenced, and a strong consensus for the ban developed, with 21 editors, mostly admins, in favor; the main exceptions were four editors who have been involved in a longstanding and ongoing series of disputes with me on various articles and Talk: pages, and one editor who is fundamentally opposed to community sanctions of any sort. There is no Arbcom case here, as the community has spoken. Jayjg 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor G-Dett

PalestineRemembered's infraction consisted of citing material to the original primary source (a now-defunct New Zealand newspaper) rather than the secondary source he found it in (a work of scholarship by Sami Hadawi). No evidence has been provided that PR meant any deceit or knew he was violating WP:CITE#Say_where_you_got_it. Banning a user from Misplaced Pages on the strength of this mistake is extreme. What is especially unsettling, moreover, is that the user who brought PR's error to attention and initiated this process accused PR – falsely as it turns out – of lifting his material from a Holocaust denial website and therefore citing the primary source in order to cover his guilty tracks . This allegation was offered as if it were a conclusive finding, and – despite a lack of supporting evidence – was initially accepted at face value. By the time the Holocaust-denial allegation was shown conclusively to be false (PR's source was a 1989 book; the spuriously adduced Holocaust-denial source was written sometime after 1995), a motion was already underway to have him banned. The editor who made the false accusation has yet to retract it (and in fact has oddly gone on to suggest that the 1989 source may have plagiarized the post-1995 source ). If there are other reasons to have PR banned, then they should be taken up holistically after the present cloud of specious guilt-by-association blows over. As things stand now, the false and incendiary charges regarding Holocaust denial have irreversibly tainted the proposal and the ensuing discussion. Clarification: having read Durova's post below, I want to clarify that I am well aware that there are legitimate issues regarding PR's behavior in the past, which I've noted both on the Community Sanction Noticeboard and on the user's talkpage. My above statement applies to the present infraction, and to the debate about banning that it has set into motion.--G-Dett 01:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by non involved Navou

I would encourage the Arbitrators to look into this case, as it appears to have become complex. WP:CN was designed for simple cases, and this is not simple.

Statement by uninvolved editor IronDuke

On the CN board, as of this writing, the consensus seems to be favoring banning PalestineRemembered by a ratio of roughly 20 to 5 (and a fair number come from editors who do not edit regularly in this area). Of the objectors, most are resting on process concerns. No one will defend this user's behavior. I think this user will almost certainly be banned whether it is left solely to the community or arbcom takes it up. IronDuke 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Proabivouac

I don't understand the reason for opening an Arbitration case. No one can reasonably allege either that Jayjg's accusations were wholly false, or were made in bad faith. Palestine Remembered by his own admission cited a source he hadn't read, he is a single-issue sockpuppet whose record is widely acnowledged as questionable, and having seen the same material on the site of a notorious Holocaust denier, Jayjg made the obvious call. The only questions are whether Palestine Remembered engaged in major fraud or merely totally unacceptable citation practices, and whether he should or should not be community banned.Proabivouac 02:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by FeloniousMonk

I don't think there's really anything to arbitrate here: there had consistently been at WP:AN/I and WP:CN a roughly 75 percent consensus for banning; a clear consensus that seems to have grown to 80 percent + in the last hour. And I've seen absolutely no evidence Jayjg has done anything wrong, all he did was bring the issues with PalestineRemembered to the community's attention at WP:AN/I, the community did the rest, and Jayjg didn't lobby for the ban. On the other hand, CJCurrie, who has a long-running personal issue with Jayjg and been quite peevish toward both of us since I blocked his pal HOTR, has been agitating very hard at WP:CN to rally others against Jayjg, along with G-Dett, which might be worthy of the committee's review... FeloniousMonk 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Claims that the community ban discussion hinges on a single misuse of references are disingenuous. This account has been blocked for four of its seven months of existence. This is a classic case of disruptive editing from a single purpose POV-pusher who, as diffs at the WP:CN thread amply demonstrate, is a habitual edit warrior who ignores basic policies such as WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPA. Citation misuse is the final straw, in my opinion, but far from the only straw on this camel's back.

The argument in PalestineRemembered's defense amounts to one red herring: it inflates the user's admission to misusing WP:CITE from a different source than Jayjg had originally attributed into an accusation of impropriety against Jayjg, then dismisses all other evidence against PalestineRemembered. That and some background fireworks among editors who favored the recent WP:MFD proposal for the noticeboard are the only actual points of contention.

This editor is headed toward a community ban, if not now then very soon, and there is little to examine here. ArbCom doesn't need another circus like Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. Durova 02:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In reply to a comment below about defense, the general practice at WP:CN is to reference defense statements that blocked editors post to their own user talk pages. Templates have been created to repost at the board for this purpose. Durova 07:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Hornplease

I am not sure either that there is anything to arbitate here. Jayjg appears to have brought what he considers a problem editor to AN/I; that he at the time jumped to the conclusion that the editor's error in citation sprung from a holocaust denial website and thus implied that the fact being inserted were fraudulent and that the editor in question was misrepresenting sources to get holocause denial literature onto wikipedia is unfortunate, but not really something that ArbCom is likely to want to pronounce judgment on.

About PalestineRemembered's behaviour: if he is, indeed, generally considered a disruptive editor, then the community sanction noticeboard should manage to take care of it. I notice the last of his blocks was for a month, and for the following statement:; I imagine that that block had the support of the community, since nobody undid it. If any admin undoes the block, then I imagine an arbitration case can open.

For the record, I think that indefblocking for a violation of WP:CITE when introducing material that, as I have said elswhere seems to be widely known, is excessive, even if the account has been blocked for four months out of seven. Durova's argument above, which is very helpful, puzzles me just a little; if PR was such a disruptive editor, he should have been indefblocked earlier, and this relatively harmless violation of WP:CITE should not be indicative of wholesale backsliding. I also can't find diffs at CN to disruptive editing, only to remarks on talkpages. Hornplease 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Statement by uninvolved editor Jossi

I think this is a waste of arbitrators' time. A community ban is well supported and most certainly well deserved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by CJCurrie

I have no strong opinion as to whether or not the ArbComm should hear this case at the present time, but would like state for the record that I strongly object to User:FeloniousMonk's description of my recent interventions. CJCurrie 03:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor GHcool

PalestineRemembered is the poster child of the single-purpose account. If the purpose was benign (for example, to educate the world about Palestinian history), I don't think most editors would have a problem with PalestineRemembered. However, PalestineRemembered's agenda is clearly not benign. Virtually every non-minor edit PalestineRemembered made was specifically intended to demonize Israel and Israelis, often without regard for verifiability, reliable source citation, or NPOV. If I truly "remembered Palestine" and wanted to keep that memory alive, I would probably spend my time elevating the integrity of such articles as Palestine, Palestinian cuisine, Palestinian Arabic, Flag of Palestine, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Keffiyeh, and other Palestine-related articles. PalestineRemembered, on the other hand, would rather lurk on talk pages and articles such as Battle of Jenin, Patria disaster, Israeli settlement, Anti-Americanism, Konrad Adenauer, Lehi, Irgun, and Shmuel Katz. PalestineRemembered has called Israelis and Israeli sympathizers "proud ... of their murderous racism," "a lot nastier and more dangerous than anything we've seen since 1945," and unreliable as sources (of course, when PalestineRemembered needs to use the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs for his own edits, then its completely reliable). This guy has been blocked several times and just doesn't learn. He has been given many opportunities to reform and edit in peace, but, to paraphrase Abba Eban, PalestineRemembered never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity! Its time for a permanent ban. --GHcool 04:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Nadav1

PalestineRemembered has not been given the chance to fully respond to all the allegations against him. The CSN disscussion has been proceeding at full speed ahead even though he was blocked shortly after it began. Everyone should be given a fair hearing when the punishment is so grave. nadav 06:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, in the very few times I have come across his contributions, I have found them to be tinted by his POV. I support ArbCom taking this up merely so that the decisions reached may be fair and indisputable. nadav 10:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Gatoclass

PalestineRemembered has only been an editor for seven months, and apparently been banned for four of them (probably for incivility) so he's really only had three months experience editing on Wiki in total. I can't help but wonder also, if his incivility has not been seized upon by his political opponents as an effective means of muzzling him with long bans (I note for example that at least one of those month long bans was imposed by Jayjg for incivility over a generalized comment rather than a personal attack ).

I'd also like to compare PR's summary treatment on the noticeboard to the example of defacto SPA's like Zeq and Amoruso, who have been adding unsourced or poorly sourced POV edits at least as bad as PR's for literally years and gotten nothing more than a slap on the wrist for it. By contrast, what exactly has PR done wrong since his last ban except this one apparent violation of WP:CITE? What evidence has been produced other than this one minor infraction? Seems to me there's quite a double standard at work here.

Also, I personally have scarcely had time to review PR's edit history, and I wonder how many others could have had time to do so. But a quick look through his recent edits suggests to me that he is an articulate editor who has the capability to become an effective user, assuming of course that he learns to control his tendency for incivility (which he seems to have done in recent weeks), and to work more productively with other users.

So I certainly think this move to permaban for what is a very minor infraction is overhasty and unjust. I also agree with G-Dett that the initial vote was tainted by Jayjg's (apparently incorrect) allegations about PR's use of a Holocaust denial site. Surely editors deserve a little more process before the ultimate sanction is applied? Gatoclass 06:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by not really involved user Swatjester

On Misplaced Pages talk:Single-purpose account, PalestineRemembered self identified as a single purpose account with the intent of pushing POV. I was actually planning on indefnitely blocking the user myself based on that, but apparently the community has decided as well. In the face of overwhelming community consensus that PalestineRemembered is incredibly disruptive, this case is little more than a witch-hunt against Jayjg, and Arbcom should reject it. Alternatively, if accepted, the clear weight of policy and community consensus falls on the side of Jayjg. ⇒ SWATJester 08:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin

Some users have tried to turn this into an opportunity to attack Jay, but he has done nothing wrong. He reported the issue to AN/I (later moved to CSN), which was the right thing to do, and so far 21 editors have supported a ban. Some of the editors who haven't supported it (five when I last looked) have opposed it only because it was Jay who initiated the discussion, and their objections boil down to complaints about process. PalestineRemembered is a disruptive editor, and a bad one. SlimVirgin 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Zero's statement: We're sliding into the inevitable cant and hypocrisy. Zero protests the community ban because PalestineRemembered is a "long-term editor," and therefore shouldn't be removed without more process. But PR has made 206 edits to the encyclopedia, many of them his original research, every one of them that I've seen badly written and badly sourced. On the other hand, Zero was quite happy to indefblock Zeq himself in May last year, though he was in numerous content disputes with him, and Zeq had made considerably more edits (currently 2,000 to articles, 8,000 overall) than PalestineRemembered. SlimVirgin 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by PalestineRemebered (copied from the user's talk page)

I believe I have "learnt lessons" from previous comments and sanctions.

  1. - I have stopped using the word "Zionist"
  2. - I am as careful as I can be about my information.
  3. - I am as careful as I can be about OR.
  4. - I have sometimes been guilty of incivility, but I believe I have mended my ways.
  5. - I have been misunderstood over comments concerning "ethnic labelling". I find all such references unnecessary and unhelpful, and have (occasionally) sought to persuade other users not to categorise.
  6. - I have created at least one well-established and stable page Naeim Giladi. Only circumstances have prevented others.
  7. - I have never edit-warred (good edits lost in the interests of AGF?)
  8. - Despite this, I have good edits to my credit.

I have repeatedly explained, apologised and sought guidance on my UserName. I am open to suggestions concerning it.

I have been challenged to say where I first saw the "Lord Moyne's killers buried on Mt Herzl" information - I'm not sure, but it was likely in a usenet group/Forum. It would *not* have been in a group patronised by Holocaust Deniers, whom I've always despised (cites if necessary, under my real name too). PalestineRemembered 08:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment by PalestineRemembered

PS - I would also like to be credited with never having tried to evade my bans, nor having appealed against them. I would like to think of myself as a well-behaved editor who accepts the words and decisions of those wiser and more experienced than me. After early and potentially uncivil attempts to discover policy from administrators, I have avoided any clash with them. My sole concern has been to insert good information into the encyclopaedia. This is what I was doing on three separate, different points into this one article when this complaint was levelled against me. I think everyone now accepts that the one point on which I was challenged is 100% true and completely uncontroversial (both other points I was inserting into this article likely the same). Subject to correction and the feelings of my fellow editors, I believe my participation and editing should be welcome at Misplaced Pages. PalestineRemembered 10:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I'm sorry, but I have to say that PalestineRemebered is a chronic POV pusher. Being blocked for 4 months out of the 7 he's been here does not suggest to me that this user is a very good contributer. I would possibly go as far to say he's been trolling over his username on a number of occasions. I fully support his ascertation that he is an SPA. As to whether this ArbCom is to proceed, I would suggest you take it on board - the community sanction board has turned into a farce regarding this user, with no clear way of gaining a consensus of a community ban, and his behaviour goes far beyond the scope of the initial complaint there. I think the clarity of ArbCom is needed to take it out of the communities hands. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Zero

I sincerely hope that the committee examines all aspects of this incident.

My summary: PalestineRemebered was blocked mostly on the basis of a mistaken charge brought by an editing opponent, after a meagre few hours of discussion where almost no evidence was produced, with scarcely any opportunity to defend himself. In my opinion, this represents a failure of due process that should be corrected, and raises serious questions about how WP:CSN operates.

Various points:

  1. The context of the incident was an edit war between PalestineRemebered and Jayjg (and some others) at Zionist political violence. PalestineRemebered wanted to insert some material which at least prima facie is relevant to the page, and Jayjg kept deleting it. (The material, btw, is mostly factually correct and is either sourced or easily sourcable. I'm not here taking a position on whether it is better in the article or elsewhere.)
  2. In my opinion, PalestineRemembered's behavior on Zionist political violence was not worse than Jayjg's behavior.
  3. Jayjg devoted almost no effort to explaining his deletions either in edit summaries or on the Talk page, until he accused PalestineRemebered of getting some of his information from a Holcause Denial site (IHR). This accusation is factually incorrect.
  4. 18 minutes later, Jayjg repeated the IHR charge on AN/I .
  5. While more general accusations were made, almost no evidence for them was presented but only non-specific assertions. Some contended that PalestineRemebered should be blocked for violating WP:CITE#Say where you got it even if Jayjg's charge was wrong, but WP:CITE is a guideline, not a policy. Furthermore, the majority in favor of blocking is meaningless since it is clear from the comments that many were misled by Jayjg's incorrect accusation.
  6. PR was first blocked only 18 minutes after being notified that there was a discussion about him. Only 5 hours and 7 minutes elapsed between the notification and the final block. That is not enough time for a proper discussion (some of us were asleep the whole time) and certainly not enough time for PalestineRemembered to argue in his own defence.

My recommendation: The committee should

  1. Examine the case against PalestineRemebered properly. This has not been done so far. If it is found that he should be banned, then ban him.
  2. Examine the operation of WP:CSN and consider whether constraints on its operation should be imposed. In particular, consider whether long term blocks of established editors should be imposed without those editors having a fair chance to defend themselves.

WP:CITE#Say where you got it: I was the editor who originally introduced this guideline and I have argued that it should be a policy. However, the introduction of WP:CITE identifies it as a guideline, not as a policy. A single violation of a guideline is not a reason to block someone indefinitely. If it is identified as only the trigger, there is an onus to produce the gun. If a single violation of WP:CITE#Say where you got it is a blockable offence, here are some more regular editors to block for multiple violations. I'll just give one example for each: Amoruso (text of last "quote" does not match source), Isarig , Shamir1 (the latter two are welcome to prove me wrong about those obscure Arabic sources that just happen to be in all the internet propaganda sites).

Final unwise comment: The status of the Arbitration Committee is at stake here. If we can get a long-term editor banned in a couple of hours without the need to hear a defence or even to provide a carefully presented case, then why should anyone go to all the effort of preparing an Arbitration Committee case?

--Zero 11:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Isarig

I have come across many of PR's edits, in both the main namespace and the Talk pages. Without exception, every single one of those I've seen was blatant POV-pushing, conspiracy-theory mongering or a personal attack. I am shocked that some longtime editors here could be fooled into thinking that this is 'a skilled writer and researcher'. I am less surprised that some of his co-POV-pushers have gone to lengths to falsely describe him as "longtime editor". Jaygj's actions here are impeccable. It is false that Jay's original claim (that PR copied this from a Holocaust denying website) has been proven wrong - all that has been done is that a few other non-Holocaust denying sources for the quote have appeared, but we have no way of knowing where PR copied it from. What we do know conclusively is that PR lied about where the got the quote originally, and has given two different accounts of where he really got them (first it was Hadawi's book which he allegedly has, then it was "some usenet group"). As noted above, PR is a self-declared SPA, created to push a POV - we don't need these kind of editors on the project. Isarig 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

AACS encryption key controversy

Initiated by --Rodzilla (talk) at 20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Rodzilla

Administrator Thebainer is abusing his powers in order to unilaterally exert his opinion in an edit war on the article AACS_encryption_key_controversy as it relates to Image:HD_DVD_Night_Digg_Frontpage_Screenshot_before_rose_blog_post_censored.png. He engaged in an edit war and unnecessary speedy-deletion of a consensus-accepted image and full-protected both the image page and the article page. Other administrators have since unprotected the image page, but not the article page. He made no efforts to reach consensus on the article's talk page and still has not done so. Many of the editors who have commented are in agreement that his actions are unwarranted and abusive. All of his discussion has been circular and repetitive, and he seems unwilling to accept or even consider another's point of view (see the discussion on his talk page, in which he continually repeats himself without considering new POV's).

Statement by Seraphimblade

While I do disagree with Bainer's actions in this case, I think arbitration is premature here. We just suffered a massive spamming campaign with that key, so I don't think a bit of an itchy trigger finger on his part is a tremendous error in judgment. He's been willing to discuss the matter, I'd sure like to give that, at least, a go before starting any arbitration. Seraphimblade 20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Konekoniku

I think the facts of the case here stand for themselves, and Rodzilla's summary of the issues is very thorough. I would like to raise some additional points, however. In this case, Thebainer himself has admitted that the Wikimedia Foundation has taken no stance on this issue. Therefore he is acting entirely upon his own judgment on the matter, and not the judgment of the Wikimedia Foundation. Moreover, he has refused to even discuss the issue on the AACS_encryption_key_controversy talkpage, as multiple people (including many admins) have invited him to do. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, he himself admits that he is following no official Misplaced Pages procedure either, but is rather explicitly going "out of process" (his own quoted words from the discussion above) and therefore intentionally violating standing Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. I therefore believe this is as clear an example of admin abuse as it gets. Konekoniku 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: With regards to what Raul654 has written, I do not believe we are asking ArbCom to make a policy decision as to whether or not posting the key is permissible (as such a policy decision would probably be beyond the remit of ArbCom anyway), but whether or not Thebainer's actions were/are acceptable. (Of course, it's possible that these two issues are inseparable.) Konekoniku 04:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Additional Comment: In response to what arbitrators User:Paul_August and User:Mackensen have posted, I agree that no further penalty than a reprimand is warranted. However, I do request that ArbCom does formally make a ruling to this effect and issue such a reprimand in order to set a clear example for future editors/administrators who may be tempted to apply similar abuses of power in similar situations. Nor is this a hypothetical danger either, as evidenced by User:Ned_Scott's recent actions as described in User:MrMacMan's statement.Konekoniku 08:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Bryan Derksen

I'm in broad agreement with the above statements, both that Thebainer's acting inappropriately (good intentions perhaps but really bad implementation) and that arbitration is also a bit premature. However, if things do continue as they've been going in my brief interaction with him so far I can see this becoming a significant problem. My own involvement so far has been limited to a single unprotection (the image page) and several requests on talk pages for there to be a substantive dialog about the image, I'd have preferred to give that more of a chance first and perhaps post at the administrator's notice board for more eyeballs as the next step. But since we're here now perhaps the needed dialog can be made to happen this way instead. Bryan Derksen 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Since my statement above a new copy of the image in question has since been uploaded at Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage before rose blog post screenshot.png, a contested speedy delete request for it has been made with arguments similar to those involving Thebainer, and an edit war has erupted at the main article over its inclusion. I'm starting to think this arbitration request may not be so premature after all, discussion and consensus appears very hard to achieve right now. Bryan Derksen 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if it matters at this point, but I just got into a mini edit war with Thebainer over on Commons regarding some metadata attached to Image:Free-speech-flag.svg. (talk page) Bryan Derksen 02:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

I've been watching this one closely (article editing! it's fun!) and unlocked the article (back to semi-protected). Edit-warring up to 3RR then locking the article on one's preferred version is, um, just not the right thing without an excellent justification afterwards. We don't even have a DMCA notice, and I doubt we'll get one. Also, The Number has been on es:wp since Saturday 17:50, and I notified the Foundation about it the moment it was up and no-one's seen fit to panic. This was unnecessary and not effective, even in a good cause - David Gerard 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And as an editor on the article, I would ask only that Thebainer not do this again and it be left at that. Admins do sometimes have to do stuff because it's damn well right, even if I disagree this particular action of his was necessary - David Gerard 23:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Kaldari

Per discussions at Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#Digg_screenshot_note, I restored the image Image:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage Screenshot before rose blog post.png that Thebainer had deleted out of process. I also left a note on Thebainer's talk page explaining why I restored it. Thebainer then deleted the image again without any meaningful discussion. I have left two separate polite messages on Thebainer's talk page, neither of which have been responded to. I have no interest in wheel-warring with Thebainer, and I find it disappointing that he would act in such a unilateral fashion. I would hope that he would at least show courtesy to a fellow admin and respond to my requests to discuss the issue further. I'm hoping he just hasn't gotten around to it yet. Kaldari 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Thebainer

I apologise if I haven't been sufficiently clear in my discussion on this matter. Let me explain why I have acted in the way that I have, by saying that my intention at every stage has been to protect the project, and by outlining the assumptions under which I have acted:

  • That the issue is not merely editorial, but involves legal questions;
  • That the Foundation's explicit avoidance of this issue was, in light of the Foundation presently not having General Counsel to advise them, indicative of nothing more than an intention to avoid, for the time being, taking a position which could involve damaging consequences;
  • That the early consensus developed among the legally aware people who had looked into the issue – that the key should be excluded until the legal questions could be resolved – was still in play and should be upheld.

If any of these assumptions were incorrect then of course my actions would not be appropriate and should be undone, because the issue would be purely editorial and it would be highly inappropriate to do anything other than respect an editorial consensus. But I have made these assumptions based on the best information available to me, and it is on this basis that I have acted. If my assumptions are incorrect then naturally I will accept that and will certainly take no further action. --bainer (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor Ben

(Posted elsewhere.)

Statement by MrMacMan

I've been trying to avoid this matter ever since I asked User:Jimbo about what his take on the issue was here. I don't feel that this arbitration needs to address whether or not something should or should not be included, it should ask itself if people are following proper policy. I listed to his advice to 'Take it slow, see how things are going' so I read discussion on the talk pages and didn't try to rush into it without thinking the issue through. I feel we were getting lots of different opinions from many editors and were building consensus. Based on the views of the discussion on the talk page slightly before May 8th the uncensored image was posted. Then the string of back and forth edits occurred as well as the deletion of several copies of the uncensored image. Seeing these edits in real time made me rather confused -- I looked for some further discussion on the page about the images, but Thebainer didn't post anything on the talk page. I also noticed that no only were the images being reverted they were also being deleted nearly simultaneously. Then the page was fully protected. It was abusive to have an ongoing dispute and then fully protect a page without even talking about the edits you were making beforehand. I find the war wheeling (detailed better above by Kaldari) can't be understood. If your going to speedy delete something without discussion (or without even stating the policy that your using to speedy delete from) you have to take a moment to realize that another admin took the time to under your actions and that you should probably try to figure out why.
A similar edit war happened this past night with User:Ned Scott. He also had not previously commented on the article in the talk page, but removed the image nevertheless. In am edit summary he cited 'using image to get past text ban, plain and simple...' here. While no such ban exists I messaged Ned User_talk:Ned_Scott#AACS_images telling him about current discussions. He also tagged the image for a speedy delete here with the rational 'using an image to get past the text ban', i put a holdon tag and started discussion on the image talk page here. He went on to state that 'The Foundation doesn't get a choice in the matter, it's a matter of US law.' here. Again I don't feel that this is poicy, yes we are held to U.S. law, but there isn't any legal decision about the key yet either, in fact, the article says so itself. MrMacMan 10:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Alecmconroy

If ya'll take the case-- take the case just as a behavior issue-- don't stray into content/policy dispute. The legal question should be left up to the Foundation, the content/policy dispute should be up to the community. I'd hope Thebainer would just not do this again, and it be left at that. If that won't work, I guess you have to take it, but i'd hope you only decide the question of an admin who persists in acting this unilaterally in the face of such disagreement about whether his actions are appropriate.

On a side note, I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked in legal research. I don't think Misplaced Pages is exposed if we publish the key, but I can tell you one thing-- having the Foundation or ArbCom coming out and saying "It's okay to publish the key on our site" would almost certainly be exposing the Wikimedia Foundation to much more liability than the actual act of the community publishing the key. I think both risks are pretty much zero, but that's just one more reason to leave it up to the community. Saying "You now have Arbcom's formal and official permission to use our servers to do X" is almost always worse, legally, than the actual event of "Our servers being used for X". --Alecmconroy 11:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Arbcom exists to arbitrate on user conduct. There is no doubt that Thebainer is acting in good faith, and there is no doubt of the good faith of other established users above either. The legal quesiton of inclusion or otherwise of the key is a matter for the Foundation; in the meantime I guess we have to apply the standard approach of excluding disputed content until there is consensus for its iclusion, but that is actually a side-issue. In as much as good faith has not been called into question, this case would appear to be dead in the water. 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Cerejota

I believe that user Thebainer while acting in good faith, based his actions on erroneous assumptions about the stance of the consensus to that point in the various pages.

As someone involved in various discussion, in various pages, on various aspects of this controversy and related positions, I can say that the "legality" aspect is a weak one among the community.

Of much more concern to the community in general has been the issue of memespam. While the essay at WP:KEYSPAM does touch upon a legal discussion, the bulk is about this spam. I have defended the initial hard lockdown of the key, and was able to get an admin to edit the then-locked Digg page using our community methods.

However, the spammers have been kept at bay, and we are back to normality.

While WP:KEYSPAM is an essay that enscasulates a certain consensus, the talk page reveals it is under debate. And Thebainer might well remember that consensus can change.

There is also the unfortunate appearence of fishy behaivior: others admins un-protect the page, and Thebainer engages in edit warring, which when he approaches WP:3RR, bang, a full lockdown (not even seaosned editors allowed!). That is a clear misuse of administrative power. This was not spam, this was a legit editing dispute that the admin, against all policy, resolved by locking down.

Administrators should avoid even the appereance of misuse. In this case Thebainer appears to have tried to use his priveleges to stiffle WP:CCC in the middle of an editing dispute.

I think ArbCom cannot let this opportunity pass to create a guideline and precedent for admin behavior. With great power comes great responsibility. --Cerejota 13:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ali'i

My apologies if I am not allowed to post here, but I must humbly request that if this case is accepted by ArbCom, that you do not try and rule on the legality of posting the key. You are not lawyers and are not spokespeople for the entire Wikimedia Foundation. You are supposed to decide issues regarding user conduct on the English language Misplaced Pages. So if this case is accepted, please stick to deciding if Thebainer erred in his judgment and/or acted inappropriately. The issue of actually posting the key is not yours to decide. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Second statement by Kaldari

I believe this case arose because of confusion regarding what there was consensus on. During the spamming incident, there was consensus against posting the key as it was merely spam, i.e. there was no reason the key should be included in Misplaced Pages and allowing it to be posted merely encouraged further spamming. Also there was a perceived risk of legal liability. Once the spamming had died down, it was fairly evident that the key itself had become encyclopedic. The New York Times referred to it as "the most famous number on the Internet". The number itself gets 1.5 million Google hits. And several mainstream media sources have published the number in their coverage of the issue. For the most famous number on the Internet to be completely absent from Misplaced Pages, even in its article about the controversy surrounding the number, was somewhat ridiculous. In discussions on that article's talk page, consensus was emerging to include the number, although in a very subtle, indirect way (that would also be difficult to challenge legally) - by including a screenshot of the front page of Digg from the "user revolt". In this way, our inclusion of the number would only be incidental to our coverage of the topic, rather than a blatant challenge to the law as some editors would have preferred. In order to facilitate further discussion of the issue, I undeleted the image in question, but did not add it to the article. Thebainer, no doubt operating under the previous assumption that there was an all out "ban" on including the number in any form, summarily deleted the image again and attempted to keep the article in full lock-down. Although his intentions were no doubt admirable, his approach (which amounted to edit/wheel warring) and his unwillingness to participate in ongoing discussions left much to be desired. Kaldari 16:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Second Statement by Cerejota

I think it is beyond the scope of these statements to question or not the procedural scope of an ArbCom proceeding. I also disagree that this is only about concerns of the use of administrative powers during a content dispute.

It is also about using legal arguments to invoke extreme administrative measures.

TheBainer's arguments for his conduct were of a highly charged nature. To invoke legal issues in order to create the impression that regardless of POV on the content dispute, one is endagering wikipedia if one includes the number.

By alleging he was simply protecting the legality of wikipedia, and having a convoluted explanation as to why the Wikimedia Foundation remained silent, TheBainer was having a chilling effect on the free debate and consensus seeking.

This is beyond a mere editing dispute.

This points to a policy void: if legal matters are the sole purvey of Wikimedia Foundation then what to do when Wikiemedia remains silent?

The answer should be obvious: let the community sort it out.

But that an administrator was able to harm the community process by misuse of his administrative status means that a clarification, and a set policy, is needed.

The ArbCom could and should consider that void, using this case as an opportunity.--Cerejota 01:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

The arbitrators have requested that statements on this page be kept concise and preferably not more than 500 words. Recall that the issue at this time is whether there is a case that the Arbitration Committee should hear and decide. If the case is accepted, parties will have a full opportunity to present evidence and proposals. Parties whose statements (including both statements for those who have posted two) dramatically exceed 500 words are requested to shorten them. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Duly noted and shortened :) Kaldari 03:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that so did I --Cerejota 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/7/0/0)

  • Decline. Premature. --jpgordon 23:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm waiting to see Thebainer's response to this before choosing to accept or decline. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Changing to Accept; I agree with Raul654 that we'll probably have to deal with this sooner or later, and I can't see an advantage in 'later'. All editors are making a good-faith effort to do the best for Misplaced Pages, it seems to me - they just disagree about what that is, and I think the questions go deeper than simple editorial judgment. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Waiting as well, although it does seem a bit premature at this point. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC) - reject at this point. I'm not convinced of the need for any action now, and a case would more likely be detrimental than helpful. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept. One way or another this is going to continue for the foreseeable future until either the arbcom or the Foundation makes a definitive statement one way or the other (as to whether or not it is acceptable for the AACS key to be put in an article), and an arbitration case is the most expedient venue to do that. Raul654 03:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. The only relevant issue for us in this proposed case is editorial conduct, primarily it would seem, of Thebainer. However although his actions were probably misguided, everyone seems to agree they were well intentioned. Probably the most that is warranted here is a reprimand. Unless this behavior were to persist, I'm willing to leave it at that. Paul August ☎ 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline; I agree with Paul. Mackensen (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, also agree with Paul. - SimonP 12:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. There was point to the case being proposed, to air opinions; but Paul's argument seems valid: if the actions were in good faith, then we'd only give out a caution. The lesson here should be specific, and not designed to limit independent admin action in unforeseeable circumstances. Charles Matthews 13:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject, agree with Paul. FloNight 00:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification

Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process. Place new requests at the top.

Appeal from Koavf

Koavf (talk · contribs · block log) recently contacted me via email, asking for an appeal by the ArbCom of his indefinite block, which was placed in November by Dmcdevit with the log summary of "Extensive block history for perpetually edit warring and disruptive behavior, but behavior is unmodified. Exhaustion of the community's patience." Koavf's reasons for his unblock are copied below:

I personally desire to be unblocked because I enjoyed editing Misplaced Pages and I was in the middle of several articles that were enjoyable for me to write. As for the community at large, I feel like I have made several thousand useful edits, including writing whole articles that were valuable and may not have been written with the quality or expediency that I brought to them (I am particularly proud of List of African Union member states by political system.) Furthermore, the contributions on Western Sahara-related articles has completely stagnated as I've been gone and there is no indication that this trend will reverse. I feel like I can engage the community as a mature member and that the block I have been given is disproportionate to the amount of quality that I added to the endeavor at large.

He also wrote that "I am seeking to be unblocked by the Arbitration Committee; I have been blocked for several months and was a very active contributor to Misplaced Pages prior to the block. I have tried several means to get unblocked, and none of them have borne fruit (e.g. the most recent was e-mailing the blocking admin, who has not responded in over a week.)"

Following some discussion on our mailing list, it was suggested that Koavf be unblocked and instead placed on standard revert parole. This seems reasonable; his block log shows multiple prior blocks for 3RR violations, and a revert parole would thus hopefully address that issue while allowing him to continue his ways as a productive editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flcelloguy (talk • contribs)

Motion for Unblock and standard revert parole (3/0/0/0)

Koavf (talk · contribs) is unblocked and placed on standard revert parole. He is hereby limited to a maximum of one content revert per page per day for one year. Each revert must be explicitly marked as such. Any such violations may result in further blocks of up to 24 hours, and multiple violations (i.e. three or more) may result in longer blocks or the resumption of the original indefinite block, depending on the administrator's discretion. Blocks should be mentioned on the requests for Arbitration page.

Clerk note: There are currently 11 active arbitrators, so a majority is 6. Newyorkbrad 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments

(Not sure where you want this.) I don't quite understand this particular motion without a case. I don't feel vehemently about any half-year old ban of mine, but I do disagree that it should be done this way. Mostly, an arbitration case should never take anyone by surprise. The original ban was endorsed by several admins, and no one in the community was willing to unblock after an ANI discussion. If anyone (arbitrators included) think that a revert parole is a better option, it would have been better to 1) discuss with the blocking administrator and then 2) put it to the community on some noticeboard. That's normal admin courtesy. I can't avoid the feeling that, by bypassing the usual options, arbcom has essentially (whether intentionally or not) mixed up their administrator and arbitrator hats. Dmcdevit·t 07:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree this seems like a bad idea, and is without precedent in the 9 months I have been a clerk. Unless FIcelloguy wants to act directly as an admin and unblock Koavf, the Arbcom precedent would be to list the appeal as a routine request. If four or more arbitrators agree to hear the case, a full case with an evidence and workshop page would be opened. Here you are going directly to the final decision without any input from the blocking admin or other editors who discussed the case when it was reported on the noticeboard. Thatcher131 14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Full link to discussion of indefinite block is here. Thatcher131 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the reason this procedure is being used is that the editor in question is blocked indefinitely, so he has no on-wiki method of requesting a reduction in the sanction against him. Therefore, he properly wrote to the Arbitration Committee, as recommended, and arbitrators apparently concluded that they could reduce the sanction as indicated without needing evidence and a workshop.
I think that procedurally, what is proposed here is the equivalent of setting up an expedited procedure ("summary docket") that the arbitrators would use for matters in which they believe ArbCom action is appropriate but the full panoply of opening a case is not necessary. I suppose last month's fast-tracked confirmation of the Robdurbar desysopping would be a procedural precedent, not that the two cases are otherwise comparable in any way. On the one hand, it would make sense that such an expedited procedure be established for less controversial items (perhaps with a caveat that this procedure could not be used if any arbitrator objected, or if more than one arbitrator objected). The counter-argument is that the experience of real-world legal systems is that such special expedited procedures quickly tend to get overused, including for matters that would benefit from more plenary consideration. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2

It's more than one year since this closed, so the specific sanctions against Reddi are no longer in place.

I'm under the impression that Reddi is violating the spirit of this ArbCom decision (with the additional problem of abusing Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paranormal as vote bank, see this evidence in the Paranormal case).

Do I have to go through all steps of conflict resolution again or can I restart an ArbCom case directly?

Pjacobi 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • You should certainly make some kind of good faith attempt to discuss the situation with him, but I expect the committee will take Reddi's history into account and not require the full gamut of dispute resolution before considering a case. Thatcher131 16:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram

I'm just curious as to whether the ArbCom decision for one revert per week per article applies here or not. Nowhere in the decision does it say it is limited to mainspace. --Ideogram 03:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that he tried to comment about one of the edits here and the editors reply here. MrMacMan 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Per prior cases and common usage, the revert parole applies to all project space pages like categories, AfD, and so on. I doubt the arbitrators meant for the parole to apply to his own user page. Edit warring over the practical joke box is probably more disruptive as the box itself. Thatcher131 03:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Thatcher, and would add that interaction between the two of you (Certified.Gangsta and Ideogram) should in general be held to a minimum. The parole restrictions will hopefully help in reducing friction on the mainspace pages you both edit, but there is no reason for either of you to be concerned with the content of the other's userpage. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to perpetuate the lie that this case was all about the interaction between the two of us. As I stated repeatedly, I did not touch any of Gangsta's edits since April 10th. Simple observation of Gangsta's contributions and block log since then shows he is continuing his disruptive behavior, while I have had no such problems with any other editor. I don't know exactly what happened in this arbitration case, but don't rub my nose in it. --Ideogram 18:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that while Ideogram made the request for clarification here, he was not involved in the edit war that prompted it. Thatcher131 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Please avoid use of the term "lie" anywhere on Misplaced Pages and especially on arbitration pages. There is no allegation that Ideogram was involved in edit-warring at User:Certified.Gangsta; my observation was that there also is no reason to bring a concern about that page to this forum. In any event, hopefully this concern is now resolved. Newyorkbrad 21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor taking advantage of Gangsta's 1RR restriction to taunt and harass

Please note Sumple's disgraceful revert warring at Gangsta's userpage , taking advantage of Gangsta's 1RR restriction to taunt and harass. I ask the arbitrators to take some action to prevent this kind of thing in the future. I don't think the restrictions they placed on Gangsta were intended to pin a general "Kick me" sign on him. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC).


Everyking appeal

It has been four months since my last appeal, and I want to try again. I will try to keep this reasonably brief.

I will not cause problems if released from the restrictions currently placed on me. That is a certainty and a pledge. The restrictions were first imposed in November 2005 (based on events which had occurred not in the immediate past, but in the spring/summer of 2005), with subsequent amendments in December 2005 and July 2006. Since the time of the last amendment, no one has, to the best of my recollection, complained about me or sought for any action to be taken against me (with the exception of the September 2006 desysopping, which was based on an off-wiki comment I made). This is, therefore, 10 months in which my behavior has been uncontroversial.

I am very conscious of mistakes I made that lead to the ruling, and my awareness of these mistakes has helped keep me free of controversy during the subsequent period. I believe I was responsible for a lot of unnecessary drama developing on the AN pages. At the time, I didn't worry about drama, and this was a serious flaw in my approach that was counter-productive; from it came only incivility and the deepening of disputes. It has been a long time since then, and I am now quite conscious of the importance of keeping a difference of opinion from reaching a boil and not allowing personality conflicts to grow and overshadow substantive issues.

In February I underwent an unsuccessful RfA, and I have spent a lot of time studying it. It's clear that I have a lot of critics, and I want to prove them wrong; I want to move forward without dragging old controversies along with me and help the project in more respects than I currently can. The restrictions keep me locked to the most unpleasant events of my editing career and don't allow the past to become history. Everyking 04:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you've moved beyond your previous (Bush-eque) claim that you've never done anything wrong, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. It shows that you are making progress.
I am concerned, however, by your recent defense of Chahax. Chahax used his IP address to make ridiculous pro-creationism edits, and then used his main Chahax to put the Intelligent design on featured article review, claiming it was unstable (not in small part because *he* was the one doing it). Using checkuser, I caught him and blocked him. You came to my talk page to defend him, saying "Chahax seems to have explained himself adequately; however, I suspect that isn't enough for you", to which I replied "You have an interesting definition of "explained himself adequately" - he admits he made the biased edits in question, and denies he did anything wrong." I find it disturbing that either (1) you apparently consider his actions acceptable, or (2) you did not properly investigate his actions beforehand (for which you have previously been sanctioned). Worse, it is this very behavior - leaping to the defense of obvious problem users - that got you banned from the administrator's noticeboard. For the record, Chahax later turned up on two attack sites (Righttorace and WikipediaReview), in a discovery institute blog and a Christian Science Montior article describing how hard it is for anti-science crusaders to put misinformation into our articles. You do not seem to have come to terms with your propensity to leap to the defense of obvious problem users, which in effect, makes you their enabler. I therefore see ample evidence for your continued ban from the administrator's noticeboard, from critizing other admins, 'etc. Raul654 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Except in heinous cases, I believe in giving users the benefit of the doubt and second chances. Chahax presented what seemed to be a sympathetic case, and moreover you had not just blocked him for an initial period to see if he would get the message, but indefinitely. We have plenty of admins who take hard lines against users, and I try to help mitigate that tendency by acting as a voice for fairness. In no sense do I try to be anyone's enabler; to the extent that they are doing anything wrong I oppose that and try to get them to correct themselves. You will notice in the case of Chahax I proposed to him that he not nominate the article in question again, and instead propose nominating it on talk. In this sense I was trying to get him to replace a behavior that was causing a problem with an alternative that would probably be uncontroversial, while still allowing him to speak his views about the article. Everyking 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand how you can claim Chahax presented a sympathetic case. At the time you came to his defense, were you fully aware of the all of his actions, as required of you by the arbitration decision? And, assuming you were, do you consider his actions - seriously biased editing, sockpuppetry, starting a featured article review under false pretenses, et cetera - to be acceptable?
To be frank, I'm seeing eerie parallels between this case and previous cases where you jumped to the defense of problem users: Skyring, Hollow Wilerding, and all the others whose names I forget. Why shouldn't we believe that you are simply saying what you think we want to hear, so that we will drop the sanctions, and then you can go back to your old behavior? Your actions of three weeks ago do not seem to coincide with what you are saying now. Raul654 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Chahax argued that he was not concealing his use of an anon account and that he was not therefore guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. I found that reasonably convincing. I do not agree with his edits about intelligent design, but the ones I saw (from his IP address) were not appalling, ban-worthy POV pushing (examples , ), and I say that as an atheist. A short block to get a message across may have been in order, but not an indefinite one.
I'm not aware that I was ever sanctioned for defense of alleged problem users, or that the ArbCom feels it is objectionable to do what I have done in those cases. I feel what I have said on this subject is consistent; what I said to you in my initial reply was the same thing I have always maintained about my attempts to intervene in these problem cases. Everyking 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Before this is rejected, if that is to be its fate, let me make a further plea. Fred accuses me of "inappropriate agitation" and Raul accuses me of supporting "problem users". To the extent that I have been engaged in anything that could be remotely described as "agitation", it has been infrequent and uncontroversial, for example my defense of the existing RfA format on the RfA talk page recently. Nobody seems to have any problem with me weighing in on these issues, except perhaps the ArbCom (although it has never said so in a ruling). Some people disagree with me, of course, but no one accuses me of disruption or agitation. It follows that if my restrictions were lifted or eased, I might do much the same on the AN pages: express my views in an uncontroversial manner. Why would a person think that, although I seem to cause no controversy whatsoever on other Misplaced Pages namespace pages, if allowed onto the AN pages I would be disruptive? It seems much more reasonable to assume I would behave consistently across these pages.

One factor that is being ignored is the specific set of circumstances that led to the ruling in the first place. In every single topic I ever discussed on the AN pages, I was responding to the actions or suggestions of others. What sort of things was I responding to? In the time period in question, spring/summer 2005, there was a consistent trend by some admins to treat other users extremely poorly. The sort of issue involved would be something like an admin blocking a productive user for having a user name vaguely similar to that of a so-called troll, accompanied by taunting of the blocked user; moreover, upon investigation, one would find that the so-called troll who was allegedly behind the blocked account was actually blocked on some charge about as baseless as the one previously described. This kind of stuff drove me to extremes, no doubt about it, and I don't defend that—but the whole matter is still being understood out of context, even two years after the initial events took place. Furthermore, after it became clear I was causing the temperature to rise unacceptably, I refrained from getting involved in any squabbles on the page for several months, until a minor dispute over an unrelated issue caused the past events to be brought before the ArbCom. I received not a shred of credit for avoiding disputes over that length of time from the ArbCom, nor any acknowledgement whatsoever that the events on which the ruling was based had taken place so far in the past that they would ordinarily never be considered grounds for opening a case.

My point, however, is that this trend that upset me so badly no longer really exists. These days, if you go to the noticeboards, you generally find people talking about controversial blocks before making them—the exact thing I spent so much time and energy two years insisting that people do. Blocks, even when excessively harsh, are generally based in some serious need to correct a user's behavior; they aren't often based in imaginary connections and tortured policy interpretations. The normal course of actions on the noticeboards now have enough in common with my own views that I would have little cause to vociferously object to them even if I lacked any restraint at all.

Finally, regarding the complaint that I defend "problem users", to the extent that I do so it is simply based on my desire to see users treated fairly and for them to be integrated into the community (when they are not already), because I believe in a Misplaced Pages that is inclusive of contributors, the same spirit behind our offer to the world for anyone to edit. I do not enable bad behavior and I would never want that; it would not make the slightest bit of sense for me to work on building Misplaced Pages every single day of my life and simultaneously try to undermine it by helping newbies disrupt the project. It is worth noting that another admin reduced the blocked on Chahax (the case Raul cites against me above, in which he imposed the initial block) from indefinite to 30 days, which I find to be a reasonable solution. Opposing the most extreme penalties does not mean trying to give these "problem users" a blank check to do whatever, and I am tired of being painted with that brush. Everyking 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

(If I'm allowed). "I will not cause problems"; "a pledge"; "I am very conscious of mistakes I made"; "I believe I was responsible for a lot of unnecessary drama..."; "this was a serious flaw in my approach that was counter-productive"; "I am now quite conscious of the importance...".

You know, wikipedians don't do mea culpa very well. Face matters. Can't we give some credit here. I've disagreed with this contributor on just about everything, and I'm vaugly aware of some of the problems. But we give useless trolls who contribute nothing the benefit of the doubt, we unblock vandals just to see if it will work, even Danny Brandt gets another shot. Why not here? Is there not at least some chance this is genuine? Yes, I'm sure he'll still have views that will annoy some people, yes he'll probably defend stuff we don't like. And? Perhaps arbcom are aware of things I'm not, in which case ignore me, but otherwise, why not? --Doc 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure he'll still have views that will annoy some people, yes he'll probably defend stuff we don't like. And? - that's the whole point. That's what got him banned from ANI in the first place, and prohibited from criticizing other administrators actions. You admit he will probably go back to the behavior that got him sanctioned (for good reason), and you don't see a problem with that? Frankly, I can see lots of reasons to keep the sanctions up, and very, very little benefit that could come from removing them. Raul654 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think that was what got me banned from those pages. My understanding was that the ArbCom objected to my expression of views in a way it considered disruptive (and I concede that the way I expressed things at that time was sometimes disruptive), not to the views themselves. I'm not sure I would even still be contributing if I believed the ArbCom sanctioned me purely because of my views. Everyking 03:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You were sanctioned for two reasons: (1) Because you repeatedly antagonized administrators about their actions (with such regularity that others turned it into a drinking game), and (2) it quickly became apparent from the ensuing discussion that you often did so with little (if any) understanding of the facts that led to those actions. Raul654 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Clerk note:

Newyorkbrad 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
It appears that only the restrictions imposed in Everyking 3 are still in effect. Thatcher131 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Motions in prior cases

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



Archives

Categories: