Revision as of 21:56, 17 December 2012

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

SchuminWeb

Initiated by Mangoe (talk) at 16:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• S Marshall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ironholds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GiantSnowman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Centpacrr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: There are potentially a long list of participants in this, as I'll note below. I've limited this to the subject of the case, myself, User:S Marshall as the proposer of the desired outcome, and the other next three as the major participants in the actual conflicts that brought about this request. If some of those I've listed decide they don't want to go forward with this, I'm OK with their removal from the case.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• notice posted at the RfC

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• This is as a follow-on to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb. Other steps have not been undertaken in part because SchuminWeb has been completely unresponsive and indeed has not edited since 27 November, and in part because the consensus response of the RfC would require ARBCOM to carry it out.

Statement by Mangoe

The immediate genesis of this case lies in the RfC linked above. I'm not going to repeat everything that is in that case, but will try to point out a few salient points.

There have been complaints for at least a couple of years about SchuminWeb's imperious and idiosyncratic use of his admin powers in closing deletions, particularly with respect to fair-use images. This has come to a head at least twice that I know of. Most recently, he deleted a bunch of TV show screenshots which were used in articles on specific episodes. This came to deletion review as a mass request in which SchuminWeb did not participate. This is not atypical, as in the RfC various people pointed out how he was wont to delete requests to reconsider his decisions by saying "take it to DRV." The DRV upheld his deletions, but it also raised awareness of his behavior a lot. Thus, when the RfC was started, his behavior found lots of additional detractors, and no real defenders, again, not including himself.

But this all had happened before, as reviewed in Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb#The Wikibreak in December 2011 and what preceded it. Last year he started a campaign against a set of fair-use images from the Denver Public Library and some related images, beginning with a deletion in September 2011 which was overturned. Most of these images were uploaded back in 2005 by users who haven't edited in years, so it was easy to delete a lot of them simply because (a) they weren't being watched anymore, and (b) SchuminWeb often employed tactics which allowed him to delete the image before anyone knew it was marked for deletion. This campaign increasingly ran into opposition. Centpacrr got caught up in this because a lot of his articles were losing images, and he was more vocal in chasing down the FfDs and objecting. In the middle of this SchuminWeb marked a personal picture of Centpacrr for deletion, first because of a logo, but then on the grounds that someone else had been holding the camera. This elicited a lot of complaint, as did a completely unrelated fair-use deletion in which SchuminWeb closed his own deletion nomination (which was overturned). SchuminWeb then largely dropped out of Misplaced Pages for the next month or two, ostensibly to work on his personal website.

Be that as it may, the consensus of the RfC was that we do not want him coming back after this dies down and resuming his administration work. His complete lack of response to criticism of his behavior, we felt, is unacceptable. I personally would be satisfied if he were barred from the deletion processes, but the expressed consensus was that his administration rights be removed. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I need to emphasize that the specific concern of the RfC was that he would be able to "deal" with this complaint by ignoring it, as he has ignored much else. If he came back and made good faith participation in the RfC, I at least would be moved to drop this for now, and I think that would be the consensus of others. What we don't want happening is that he gets to keep up this kind of behavior without review if he comes back, which is why we want this to go forward regardless of his participation. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

The broad nature of the support behind the concerns raised at the RFC makes this request even more weighty and deserving of the Committee's attention. While I know the Committee has in the past declined to hear cases regarding a party in absentia, I agree with TParis' point at the RFC that permitting further administrative action by Schumin in absence of a response and resolution to the concerns raised is impermissible. I would suggest the Committee pass a series of motions in line with the March 22 motions regarding Aitias to resolve the matter pending Schumin's return. MBisanz 18:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by S Marshall

I do not recall ever being in conflict with SchuminWeb. I am not here to raise a beef with him. My position is simply that the community has expressed concerns about SchuminWeb's use of the admin tools, and admins must answer such concerns when they are raised. They should not be permitted to hide from them. I assume good faith, so I must suppose that SchuminWeb's sudden wikibreak at this time is a coincidence rather than a tactical withdrawal in the face of questions he cannot answer. If so, the appearance of justice is of the essence. A temporary desysop will prevent SchuminWeb from returning to use the tools later without facing the process.

The alternative possibility, that SchuminWeb has been driven away because he is unwilling to face his accusers because he finds questions about his use of the tools stressful, is incompatible with being an admin on Misplaced Pages. Answering questions about your tool use is not optional, so this too leads to a desysopping.

However, the desysopping should not be understood as a punishment. SchuminWeb is entitled to answer the accusations that have been made against him before we reach any conclusions. Rather than a punishment, the desysopping I propose should be understood as a technical measure designed to prevent any accidental failure to follow the correct process. It follows that in the event that SchuminWeb reappears, he should be resysopped. In this case the Committee will, no doubt, want to assure itself SchuminWeb is genuinely engaging in a community discussion about his tool use.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by GiantSnowman

I'll be as brief as I can - partly for time, and partly because there's no need to repeat what's already been said at the RFCU (of which I was a certifier). For me, the issue is two fold - it relates to the inappropriate deletion of images against apparent consensus, and it also relates to SchuminWeb's failure to engage with any subsequent discussions on the matter. There have been disucssions at DRV, AN, his own talk page and finally the RFCU - as far as I can tell he has not appropriately engaged on the matter at any venue. GiantSnowman 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved Point of Order from User:Hasteur

In response to the 18:13, 17 December 2012 message of Courcelles, SchuminWeb ceaced editing prior to the instigation of the RfC/U. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Quasihuman

As one of the three editors who's questions about this administrator's deletions was removed as chastisement on 27 November, I consider myself at least semi-involved. I won't repeat what I said on the RFC. Despite what I said on the talk page , I now believe that action by ArbCom is necessary given Mangoe's evidence here. The questions raised about SW's compliance with WP:ADMINACCT are strong enough for me to believe that he should not use his tools until he addresses the issue. Mangoe's evidence leads me to believe that his disappearance is a way of avoiding the issue rather taking time out to reflect on it. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold: SW may not have been aware of the RfC, but it is reasonable to assume that he was aware it was coming down the tracks, it was flagged up in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242#Admin smoke signals needed that it was headed there before he stopped editing (and he didn't participate in the AN discussion either). Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hahc21

As a participant of the RFC, and after investigating SchuminWeb's past administrative actions, as well as they way he interacts with users (administrators included) that question his actions, I consider that an arbitration case is needed. To try not to rewrite what has been said in the RFC, seems like Web's behaviour when heavily confronted because of his questionable actions is to take an unannounced wikibreak, and return when things have calmed down to avoid any procedure to take effect against him in a preventative way. There is a clear concern by a considerable part of the community about the way he uses personal preferences over policy when it comes to delete images. As Mangoe states in the RFC, seems like Web's modus operandi is to silently orphan the images and then tagging them as such before deleting them, although he has also showcased move visible actions against consensus in deletion discussions. In my personal opinion, this is a very alarming way to game the system and to achieve his goals against the standard procedure for the deletion, and discussion of deletion, of images (and non-free content in general). This is not a new behaviour recently spotted from SchuminWeb; previous issues out of his behaviour have been appointed in the last 5 years, starting from his very request for adminship in 2007, when one of the opposers stated that he'd "be worried that his actions as an admin would be more about him than the encyclopaedia", which has been demonstrated by his actions. — ΛΧΣ 18:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have tweeted SchuminWeb. As he seems to be very active on Twitter, there is no way he cannot be aware now. — ΛΧΣ 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Update #2: I have established communication with SchuminWeb and he aknowledges his awareness of this case. — ΛΧΣ 20:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan

He is aware of this and had not commented at all - he failed to comment at his RFC user and here also- he claims he is close to putting up the retired template - I say remove his advanced permissions immediately - his lack of communication and effort to explain his edits which as an admin he has a responsibility to do are damning = dysop Youreallycan 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

Doing an entirely unrelated task, I've just discovered that on November 19th SchuminWeb, without any consensus discussion that I can find, changed the wording on every "Non-free" template so that they no longer required an "Appopriate rationale" but instead a "Complete rationale". To do this on a number of templates that are fully protected, he had to use his admin bit to make the change. Is the use of admin powers to make potentially controversial edits on locked templates without discussion allowed? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by non-quite-involved Masem

I've been involved in the post discussion on the validity of the FFD closings in the DRV and subsequent ANI thread and on KWW's talk page (who closed the DRV), and do agree some trouting of SchuminWeb was needed for what seemed to be blind closing of all of those. (this being unaware of any previous actions this case against Schumin is bringing up).

I do want to point out that when one steps away from the mass closure, the individual closes that SchuminWeb did followed normal practice at FFD for most of the images given. That is, they only has 2-3 !votes, one from the nominator and a couple others - this is typical of FFD (and a possible issue, as we really should have more input, which I'm trying to figure out how to address by a slight change in FFD nominating practice). The nom gives a policy reason, the two others do not, and because we're talking NFC policy where we usually default to delete if we can't prove the image meets NFC, the deletions were generally appropriate. The ones that were subsequently individually challenged sometimes did, sometimes didn't, have more discussion and Schumin should have closed those no consensus (hence the trout for doing this too fast). But of about 260 others, Schumin had every reason and support from previous FFDs to close those as he did.

This is no way to approve or disapprove any other action Schumin may be investigated with. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Centpacrr

I fully concur with all the statements supporting desysop above and particularly by the summary posted by Mangoe, the user who filed this case, at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/SchuminWeb#The Wikibreak in December 2011 and what preceded it. I find this statement to be an accurate summary of just some of the improper misuse by the subject Admin of the tools and powers which have been entrusted to him by the community particularly with regard to the fair use of non-free images (as well as on several images for which I clearly owned the copyright), the Admin's routinely ignoring of community consensus, and his disrespectful and dismissive attitude toward "ordinary" editors with whom he has disagreed. I find particularly unacceptable the subject Admin's use of those tools to impose his own particular "interpretations" of WP's policies and guidelines by unilaterally deleting content clearly against consensus many of which are later reversed on appeal, altering fully protected templates without discussion as noted immediately above, and engaging in practices such as the mass removal of long standing fair use images from from articles (and the rationales from the images' host pages), and then using that as a reason to speedy delete them as "orphaned non-free" files. This Admin has also engaged in a wide variety of other similar such practices in order to "game" or subvert both the spirit and the letter of WP policies and guidelines and done so over a long period of time.

It is not my position that this user should be banned from editing on WP, but I think that he has so extensively and widely violated the confidence of the community by blatantly misusing the tools of adminship that were entrusted to him that he has forever forfeited holding any such rights on WP. This Admin's utter silence in explaining his actions both in the current process and on earlier occasions (such as in December, 2011) in my view only serves as another clear violation of community trust. This user is free to take as many "Wikibreaks" from normal editing as he wants to, but no Admin should be permitted to take such a "break" as a means to escape being desysoped for cause. Silence is not a defense in this case, especially in that the Admin as acknowledged that he is fully aware of this process.

In my view the only satisfactory outcome to this process is to involuntarily desysop this user with prejudice but permit him to remain as an active "ordinary" editor if he wishes to remain so. Centpacrr (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Would a clerk please ensure that SchuminWeb is notified of this Request for Arbitration via "email this user" in addition to the notice that has already been placed on his talk page? Thanks. Risker (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Y Email sent. Lord Roem (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Comment: I would really like to hear from SchuminWeb but this edit over two weeks ago, is his last edit. If he is burnt out, it would be good if he could communicate to the committee that he's taking some time out. Otherwise, awaiting further statements,  Roger Davies 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • @Mangoe. Don't worry; we're not just going to let this float away on the ether but we don't normally desysop immediately and automatically under such circumstances.  Roger Davies 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements, but inclined to accept, the admin's response to the RFC/U is concerning, so I fully understand why we are here. Courcelles 18:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have asked that a clerk ensure SchuminWeb is notified of this RFAR via email as well as the notice that has been placed on his talk page. I would hope that he responds within a few days. If not, I think the Committee may consider a temporary desysop until such time as SchuminWeb returns to address the issues, as has been done in other situations. I sincerely hope it does not come to that. Risker (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• If Schumin were still editing, I'd be voting to accept this case now. As it is, it appears as though his last edit was several days before the RFC was filed, so it's entirely possible that he is unaware of the RFC, and it's almost certain he is unaware of this case request. If he's not checking email, that notification may also fall on deaf ears. Regardless, the RFC does appear to document a number of long-lasting concerns that do merit further investigation. I'll withhold voting on acceptance until the end of the week to give Schumin time to respond, but I agree with Risker - if his inactivity does continue, my intention will be to vote to accept the case and support a temporary injunction desysopping Schumin and suspending the case until he should return to the project. Hersfold non-admin 19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have no doubt that SW will become aware of this Arb request sooner or later, but he also hasn't been editing since the RfC. While we have proceeded with cases when it was perceived the absence was deliberate to avoid scrutiny or they had stalled proceedings as long as possible, I don't think we've reached that stage here. There's no ongoing disruption by virtue of Web not actually editing, so I'm not sure we should be accepting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

NOTE TO ARBS: SW has already acknowledged his awareness the Arb request here. Centpacrr (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 11:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Cla68

I request an ArbCom review of Future Perfect at Sunrise's (FPaS) recent actions regarding an Arbitration Enforcement (AE) board request. In that request, FPaS blocked me, then led the discussion in the AE request to a quick close. Normally, I think an RfC would be the appropriate venue to request community feedback on the incident. However, the incident tangentially involves User:Mathsci, with whom I currently have a one-way interaction ban. Although I should be able to discuss Mathsci in the context of dispute resolution, I believe, based on his past actions and statements, that FPaS would unilaterally block me again if I tried to do so. Thus, only under the protection of ArbCom am I free to present my case. My initial statement will likely run over 500 words and I beg the Committee's indulgence in the interest of presenting a full rationale for why an ArbCom review is necessary.

The issue

On 5 December I was notified of an ArbCom Amendment request by User:SightWatcher. I responded with my frustrated take on the core problem with the overall situation. Mathsci responded to my comment by filing an AE request (Permalink). In the AE request, I said the following: . Two admins responded- Timotheus Cannens (TC), and Seraphimblade (S). FPaS then responded, threatening me with a block which contradicted the opinions of TS and S. Since it was apparent to me that FPaS's opinion was against consensus (and WP:DR policy), I responded thusly. By "monster", I was referring to the situation, not to Mathsci himself. FPaS responded by blocking me for 24 hours. Several admins then commented on the situation, some recommending sanction on Mathsci and so on. FPaS then guided the discussion to a quick conclusion even though other editors were still trying to participate. While FPaS was guiding the discussion, I was unable to respond to his accusations because he had blocked me. He did not unblock me until after he closed the AE request.

I believe there are several problems with FPaS's actions:

• I am allowed to defend myself by discussing the editor who posts an AE request about me in the AE request section.
• I am allowed to discuss an editor with whom I have a one-way interaction ban in dispute resolution forums related to dispute resolution with that editor.
• FPaS's block was against consensus.
• The block served to silence me while FPaS guided the discussion to his desired conclusion.
• FPaS's threats to block me if I mention Mathsci in dispute resolution concerning Mathsci has a chilling effect. For example, as I said above I could not use RfC on this problem because FPaS had threatened me with blocks if I mentioned Mathsci in dispute resolution forums.
• Although FPaS stated that I could not mention Mathsci in ArbCom forums, I continued to discuss Mathsci in rather strong terms on the ArbCom Amendment page and on its talk page, including presenting evidence of what I interpreted as problemmatic behavior, yet FPaS did not block me again. If FPaS was sure that he was right, then why didn't he continue to block me for violating the law that he had laid down in AE?

FPaS's history

In the Macedonia 2 ArbCom case, FPaS was found to have violated multiple WP policies and guidelines, including edit warring. As a result, FPaS was (briefly) desysopped.

Just looking at FPaS's history since April of 2012, it appears that he may still have issues with edit warring and battleground behavior. He has been reported to the 3RR board twice, ANI once, independently warned by an admin for edit warring, and his behavior was criticized by other admins in a related AE request that he initiated:

• 11 May 2012 3RR board
• 30 July 2012 ANI accusation of Wikistalking an editor with whom he was in a dispute with
• 10 August 2012 warning for edit warring
• 11 September 2012 3RR board (conclusion)
• 2 October 2012 AE request
• In looking through his editing history, I noticed some diffs where he appeared to be edit warring or attempting to impose his will on an article without attempting compromise and collaboration on the article's talk page:
• FPaS is also still incivil in some of his his comments or edit summaries and engages in some battleground conduct with other editors with whom he disagrees:

History with Mathsci

• 18 May 2012 Echigo Mole ban discussion
• 26 May 2012 sockpuppet investigation of Mathsci in which Jclemens found that Mathsci was maintaining an evidence page under a sock account.
• 30 May AN thread: Mathsci Future Perfect
• 9 June AE appeal
• 8 July AE request
• Mathsci defends FPaS in 11 September 2012 3RR report
• 22 September 2012 AE request
• 20 October 2012 AE request where I received a one-way interaction ban

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

• Arbitration is the last method of dispute resolution. The core complaint in this request is a single 24-hour block, lifted after 10 hours. The request should be rejected for blatant lack of any prior good-faith attempt at dispute resolution.
  • The proper method of dispute resolution for a disputed block is a block review. This block was reviewable and overturnable (I made it explicit that I was not claiming privileged Arbitration enforcement status for it). If Cla68 had used an unblock request, he could certainly have attracted even more eyes on the situation. He chose not to. Instead, he announced his intention to escalate the issue directly to Arbcom immediately . He has not engaged in any constructive dialog with me since.
  • Opinions about the block were admittedly divided, but divided evenly. One admin (The Ed17) spoke out explicitly against the block; one (Seraphimblade) did so implicitly; one admin (ErrantX) explicitly supported the block; one more (Heimstern) did so implicitly. I said here that I would not stand in the way of an unblock by somebody else.
  • The reason I stated for the block is exactly the principle that was subsequently endorsed by a full consensus of all admins: "Cla68 is reminded that he is expected to stick with the spirit of the existing interaction ban even while engaged in an Arbcom process. Per WP:IBAN#Exceptions to limited bans, he may appeal the ban and "address legitimate concerns about the ban itself", but may not use that as an opportunity for unnecessarily levelling criticism against the other party".
• The claim that the quick closure of the AE thread was not based on full consensus is obviously bogus. I have said all that had to be said about it here: and . The complaint that Cla68 himself could not participate before the closure is false too: I unblocked him at 17:30 UTC; I closed the AE thread at 22:03 UTC. If he had wanted to comment before 17:30, he is experienced enough to know that blocked editors can easily get comments pasted into noticeboard threads on their behalf if they have a need to comment on something that relates to them. The reason Cla68 didn't comment during those hours is not because he was blocked, but (most probably) because it was night time where he lives.
• Instead of pursuing constructive dispute resolution, Cla68 evidently spent over a week going through my contribution history in search of dirt to drag up, from situations entirely unrelated to either this issue or my role as an admin. He deliberately kept it a secret what the exact scope of his accusations against me was going to be .
• Cla68's claim that he was prevented from pursuing other forms of dispute resolution because he would have risked being blocked again for mentioning Mathsci is bogus too. It was made quite clear to him in the AE closure and in the link to WP:IBAN what he could and what he couldn't do. As he has evidently managed to file this case without spouting new accusations against Mathsci and thus breaking the ban, he evidently understands what it means to abide by it and is able to do so if and when he wants to.
• Timing: I will be away with reduced internet access over Christmas and the New Year. I will be neither able nor willing to deal further with this over the holidays.
• Convenience link to AE thread: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Cla68

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Simple logic dictates that where an editor has his or her name or actions referred to on a noticeboard, that it is reasonable to allow them a "right of reply" to such statements or comments. This shows a fundamental weakness in "one way interaction bans" where the unbanned editor may freely make claims and statements about another editor without having any fear of being contradicted in such claims and statements. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Same parties to a long-standing, political conflict file yet another request for arbitration. I'm friends with people on both sides and would be really sad to see ArbCom sanction the whole lot of you for feuding, but I do believe that is one of the more likely outcomes. Perhaps you all might de-escalate on your own?

Statement by Seraphimblade

As with Jehochman, I find this situation unfortunate. I don't think we have anyone involved here who means to harm the project, but the frequent personality clashes and bickering are disruptive nonetheless and the default assumption has all too often become bad faith, as evidenced by the last AE action. To clarify my stance there: My main concern with FPaS' block was not mainly on its merits, as while I don't think Cla68 was over the line on the replies, he was awfully close, and I could see how a reasonable person could find it had been crossed. Rather, I was concerned that it was unilaterally placed in the midst of an AE thread that hadn't come to anything approaching a consensus. There was also not sufficient consensus to overturn the block (opinion was quite evenly divided), which is why I presume no one did, and FPaS removed it before any other action was taken.

I hope ArbCom will take this case. At this time, I think it's the only thing that will cut the Gordian knot. I hope if so, however, that it is not only FPaS' block that is examined, as that is one symptom of a much deeper root cause. I also hope that the arbitrators will set out clear standards for behavior during the case. As we've seen, things can turn bad here very quickly. Seraphimblade 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan

As per diffs presented - and users comments, Admin Futureperfectatsunrise appears to use his advanced permissions in topic areas he is involved in, and in regards to users he is close to, he should stop doing that or have his advanced permissions removed again.- It takes courage to speak out against such admins but it needs to be done - I disagree completely with futureperfectatsunrises statement that, I will be neither able nor willing to deal further with this over the holidays. - its an Internet world and Xmas holidays is not a big issue - deal with it - if he won't deal with the report then remove his advanced permissions until he does. - in my experience of his involved admin actions as diffed here by others, I vote to remove his advanced permissions immediately. Youreallycan 20:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

While not intending to get involved too much in matters concerning Mathsci in Arbspace, I think there is a serious need to review the conduct of Future Perfect on a general basis. Looking over the findings at WP:ARBMAC, his RfC/U, the AN3 report from September, and the AE case in October, in addition to his conduct regarding these R&I issues that Cla68 has noted above, it is obvious that his actions go well beyond what we accept from any editor and certainly what we should accept from an admin. Since he was already desysopped the fact that much of the conduct that led to him being de-sysopped has continued, with him also taking questionable actions in his administrative capacity suggests there is a need to consider his conduct beyond just Cla68's block. All that said, User:ErrantX has said that he will file a request encompassing all the recent activity relating to R&I and Mathsci, including admin conduct, so you should consider this as well. You may want to ask Errant if he is ready to present his case now and, if not, whether consideration of Future's conduct should be delayed until Errant files a request for a broader case that could involve other admins.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statements, but a few comments first. First, to Cla68: much of your statement does not appear to be strictly relevant to the issue at hand. Could you please remove all references to incidents in which you were not personally involved? If others also feel that FPaS's conduct has been an issue, they will be able to present their own statements with evidence. Second, while I am not entirely certain about using a single block as a basis for the entire case, this may be a good opportunity to look into this whole situation again. Clearly some sanctions are either being gamed, ignored, or are proving ineffective or unenforceable, and that needs to be cleaned up, as the situation has become untenable. Finally, if a case is to be opened, it may be best to modify the timeline such that nothing major happens until after Christmas; perhaps not start the Workshop until around New Year's. A temporary injunction barring the parties from discussing one another outside of the case pages could be used to prevent issues from exploding further in the meantime. Hersfold non-admin 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A couple of points. First, if this is deferred, then the Evidence phase should not start until after the New Year, as FPAS says he'll be out of action until then. Second, the "whole situation" has been going on for at least three years. Are you suggesting that we should hear from everyone who has been sanctioned and reappraise?  Roger Davies 18:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Possibly. Clearly something's not working, and needs to be fixed; if that means going back to the drawing board, then so be it. I know that will prove very difficult and time-consuming for us as a Committee, and have to agree with Jehochman in that it's not likely to end well for anyone. My concern, however, is that the current sanctions are either not sufficient to resolve the disruption here, or are worded such that there are loopholes being exploited. If the involved parties would stop taunting each other and go be productive, this wouldn't be an issue, but until/unless they do we apparently need to replace those sanctions with more effective ones or levy additional sanctions to make those shortcomings moot. Hersfold non-admin 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements,  Roger Davies 18:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• First off, Cla68 shorten your statement to 500 words please; it's over 840 now. And please focus on your own interactions with FPaS. Will consider further after additional statements. Risker (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Initiated by tariqabjotu at 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Alertboatbanking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dailycare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hertz1888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tritomex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Alertboatbanking: 01:44, December 17
• BritishWatcher: 20:14, December 16
• Cptnono: 20:15, December 16
• Dailycare: 20:16, December 16
• Hertz1888: 20:16, December 16
• Nableezy: 20:17, December 16
• Nishidani: 20:17, December 16
• No More Mr Nice Guy: 20:18, December 16
• Pluto2012: 20:18, December 16
• Sean.hoyland: 20:19, December 16
• Tritomex: 20:19, December 16
• ZScarpia: 20:19, December 16

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:Jerusalem/capital: Numerous threads (taken from Talk:Jerusalem and Talk:Israel) since October 2003

  Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#On the Table: Source of current phrasing in Israel lead, January-February 2010

  Talk:Jerusalem/capital/2010#Compromise on the first sentence: Source of current phrasing in Jerusalem lead, October 2010

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Jerusalem as the capital of Israel: May-July 2008
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Israel (deleted): Rejected January 2010
• Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 17, Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 18, Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 19, and Talk:Jerusalem: Latest threads on this issue, mostly since August 2012
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Jerusalem: Rejected December 2012

Statement by Tariqabjotu

The Jerusalem article has a problem.

For nine years, discussions have raged on the talk page regarding the point in the lead that the city is the capital of Israel and, to a lesser extent, that it's the capital of the State of Palestine. Around April 2007, just before the article achieved FA status (yes, I know, unbelievable), it was decided that the point would be settled by inserting a footnote explaining the controversy. In October 2010, a (further?) compromise was struck that called for noting immediately after the contested point that Jerusalem's status as capital is not widely recognized. While that seemed to maintain calm for the better part of both 2011 and 2012, over the past few months, the issue has been rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before. While there have been more than ninety threads on this matter, at least four RfCs, and at least two attempts at mediation (both rejected, including one rejected just this month), we have been left with zero ends in sight.

The impetus for this mediation is less a direct accusation of misconduct by some of my adversaries, but more a request to consider the accusations made by them. Over the past few weeks, there have been an increasing number of accusations from them that some people are "blocking" any sort of resolution (e.g. , , , ). There have been claims that those supporting the current wording are just pushing the Israeli POV (e.g. , , ). These accusations have been countered by allegations that some are pushing the Palestinian POV, reminding them the current formulation is the result of the October 2010 discussion (in which some of the current proponents of change were actually participants).

Unsurprisingly, this has fostered an environment in which the improbable has been rendered impossible. Several people from both sides (myself included) have said that even attempting to discuss this matter with one or more adversaries is a waste of time. A few editors have stated that there are no policy-based arguments for maintaining the current wording, with one saying he has "consensus by default" because of that. In recent days, it seems like there has been focus on a particular wording that mentions, but distinguishes between, Israeli and Palestinian claims, but some are still arguing that's not far enough. Throughout, there have been threats of bringing people to WP:AE or WP:RfC/U or ArbCom for the alleged "blocking" and accusations of ownership.

So I'm calling the bluff, requesting that these accusations (and any other issues) be considered. Unaddressed, any sort of resolution is impossible, as it is impossible to discuss with people who believe your every word is in bad faith and intended to push a point of view. Further, I personally -- and I'm sure I'm not alone in this -- am worried that if a compromise is struck again, there is no guarantee, without a third-party observer, that the editors involved in this discussion will drop it for good. I'm not confident an arbitration case will end this matter either, and I'm sure this time of the year and the ArbCom calendar is not ideal, but we need to try and I urge the Arbitration Committee to consider this case. -- tariqabjotu 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't know where precisely to stop with naming parties. I tried to only list people that were recently active in this dispute so as not to unnecessarily drag people in, but people who would like to be apart of this could presumably add themselves. -- tariqabjotu 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to Hersfold's questions:

1. It was intentional to not make any accusations; I (and others who support the current wording) am more the target of accusations than one making them. However, some of their statements, in the course of making their accusations, suggest a battleground stance, with labels such as "hasbarists", "racist", and "hatikvah brigade" (to say nothing of the standard "Israeli POV-pushers") have been thrown around recently. A second notable issue is that Dailycare is now arguing against the current wording, saying that cannot have consensus because it's not supported by policy-based reasons -- despite agreeing to it two years ago. There are probably several relevant policies that come into this dispute (like WP:UNDUE, which can be cited from a few angles), but these are less conduct issues and more content issues.
2. I don't edit in other parts of this conflict, and only recently (in October) returned to this article after a two-year hiatus. So, I don't know.
3. Perhaps. Someone even suggested to meet that that might be a good/better course of action. But, I'm not convinced an admin would have the courage to act on accusations that aren't very concrete.
4. I'm not sure what you mean by "in which members of the entire community participated". Are you suggesting some sort of RfC that actively attracts members from outside the Israeli-Palestinian topic area? Or is this nothing beyond a normal RfC? If you were thinking of the latter, neither an August 2009 RfC nor a January 2010 RfC, both of which suggested no change (n.b. those were even before the October 2010 change), put this matter to rest.
5. Some pointers that would clear the air. Do the user conduct issues have weight? Is there "blocking"? Are some people breaking a compromise? What does a compromise mean? I understand ArbCom doesn't rule on content, but I would hope that you could rule on the framework that would allow this dispute to be resolved. Maybe you'll even come up with something innovative. -- tariqabjotu 03:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to the suggestion by one of the ArbCom members, I'm perfectly happy with a binding mediation (or RfC), but as you see, voluntary mediation didn't work and I don't think mediation could be made involuntary otherwise. -- tariqabjotu 13:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

One more revision to my answer to Question 1 comes by looking at the recent edit history. A formulation that was never discussed was just put into the article (and reverted back in after it was reverted out). Other than that, I can't imagine needing to elaborate further; the tone and contents of some of the statements here speak for themselves... as I expected and intended. -- tariqabjotu 18:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

I support this request for arbitration. We've been to formal mediation twice (or, more exactly, twice the formal mediation didn't go ahead due to incomplete assent). Overall editors have been discussing the issue for years with RFCs and threads. Progress in content has been glacial to put it gently, there may be significant WP:Stonewalling behaviour involved, and frustration has manifested as uncivility in the long discussions. This does, of course, relate to a significant real-life controversy that arouses strong passions so this shouldn't be surprising. --Dailycare (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some examples of behavioral problems: 1, 2, 3 and 1, 2, 3. The latter edits were made by an editor who is an administrator of the project, unless I'm mistaken. (Further examples are easy to find).

2) The same issue is present in the Israel article with regard to the same statement.

3) I don't know. AE may be an option, although here we have several involved editors.

4) An RFC would fail if the same group of editors can "just say no" to prevent an outcome as are saying no currently to prevent an outcome. If this possibility is somehow controlled, an RFC might work.

5) An ideal outcome could be that a clearer vision is communicated with regard to civility and stonewalling. --Dailycare (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Alertboatbanking

As I stated in my previous comments I favor no particular final solution because it will never happen. The unreliability and poor quality of articles on the Arab-israeli conflict will be a permanent feature of wikipedia for decades to come. As long as prominent notices alert the reader to the manipulations of the more active/effective side (currently Israeli nationalists) little more can be done.

The bad acting partisans are intelligent calculating and don't give a hoot about wikipedia and are acting purely based on nationalistic motivations. So the realistic energy-optimal strategy towards them is not confrontation or arbitration but containment. Anyone who you thinks the interests of their precious nation is more important than wikipedia should be barred from editing it. In lieu of that poor quality tagged dispute ridden articles will have to do.Alertboatbanking (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

I dont honestly see what an ArbCom case would do to resolve this issue. There hasnt been any edit-warring, or at least nothing on the scale as to require a case to resolve, and while the talk page may be a bit uncomfortable it hasnt reached a point that the standard discretionary sanctions couldnt deal with. If this were to be accepted as a case, the outcome would likely follow the pattern of you banning anybody who knows anything about the dispute, resulting in a new group of partisans arguing on an even lower level. The Misplaced Pages way, tried and true. nableezy - 05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, that last comment is patently untrue. The formulation was discussed, the exact sentences and sequences were brought to the talk page yesterday, however you refused to answer any questions, repeatedly. Instead you only said that it would be reverted without once providing a cause. You cannot refuse to discuss the content and then complain that it was never discussed. What is this, kindergarten? No I wont play soccer. No I wont play basketball. I wont talk about what game to play. Teacher! They're playing football without me!!!! nableezy - 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012

I wrote on the Talk page that I would ask the ArbCom to study the issue if we could not find a way to move forward on the article. Tariqjabotku did it before.

The referees asked the right questions :

• Sort of dispute is exactly where WP:YESPOV, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. (Jclemens)
  • That's my mind and indeed the situation is contested except that I personnaly cannot believe any more in the good faith of some other editors. If we would apply the rules of NPoV quietly (ie just referring to what reliable sources state) that would be easy to solve.
• "why mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute ?" (AGK) :
  • I arrived lately in the discussion but per my understanding, mediators refused to take the mediation in charge.
• "What specific allegations of misconduct are you making?"
  • There are personnal attacks but that is not a problem
  • A side is WP:GAMING the system in refusing any evolution of a pov-ed sentence based on the fact it has been in the article for months. I assume the other think that we are biaised (?).
• "Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?"
  • There are problems on all articles relatived to the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
• "#Is there some reason why existing discretionary sanctions will not suffice to resolve this dispute?"
  • I don't think sanctionning anybody could solve anything. WP:GAMING or WP:WIKILAWYERING cannot be solved by any "discretionary sanction".
• Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
  • I think that a part of the problem is that too many people intervene. No discussion can evolve because it goes in all directions and people do not answer to others'arguments and everything turns around.
• "If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case?"
  • I would propose the following to the ArbCom. Don't analyse the past but let's see the good will of contributors to solve this "under the eyes of the ArbComs". Let's create a page of discussion where a few contributors will intervene and let's see how it moves forward. If we don't succeed in solving the issue, the Arbcom will be able to say who is working in the global spirit of our wikipedia rules and who does not and it will be able to take a decision based on concrete facts. Doing so, we move forward, we don't need to dig the history of the articles and the discussions to prove this one or that one is the bad guy. We could even find a solution by ourselves because everybody knows that the Arbcom will just look at us. That is also a good opportunity to synthetize all arguments and refresh the discussions. And all in all, it is the more constructive.

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I agree with much of what Pluto2012 has said. The content issue is embarrassingly simple to resolve in principal because it is about correcting a basic error. Many sources have already solved it in ways that comply with our policies. All that is required is for editors to follow the sources and comply with our policies and guidelines. It should be easy but it has not been possible, largely it seems because the information in the sources gets convolved with editor's personal opinions on the real world issues. If the only thing that came out of this was that it stopped editors from writing their personal opinions/personal analyses based on what they think they know about the real world issue without "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions" (to quote the discretionary sanctions) or what they think about other editors, it would be a huge leap forward. It's difficult to convey how low the signal to noise ratio is on that discussion page or how rarely people actually survey and look at how sources handle the contested status of Jerusalem. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators asked for an example of behavioral issues. Here is one that just happened. It's typical, so I'm by no means singling out this particular editor.

• "Oppose this wording. "claims" again this goes back to the suggestions we add proclaimed capital. If we are going to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.." etc. see diff. Why is it problematic ? It ignores countless sources that present Israel's claim that Jerusalem (complete and united) is their capital as a claim, rather than presenting it as a statement of fact. The statement is predicated on the editor's personal view that it is a fact that "Jerusalem is israel's dejure and defacto capital", and it is that belief, not the data in the sources, that is used to make content decisions. Also, no one wants "to pretend that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel". The issue is, as always, presenting a disputed claim as a unattributed statement of fact using Misplaced Pages's narrative voice. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you NMMNG, that is another example of a behavioral issue, misrepresentation, NMMNG saying that I am "pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive." Of course I know what the sources say because I'm one of the people there who actually does what they are supposed to do, surveys them and cites them in discussions. Of course I know that there are sources that say Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Of course NMMNG knows that I know this because I have explicitly acknowledged it on several occasions and I have told him many times that there is diversity in the sources and that we have to deal with the mess. And NMMNG should know by now that I never pretend about anything. There is no possible justification for this kind of misrepresentation, no one should have to deal with it. It needs to stop. Is the example I gave above dismissive of the views expressed by the editor in the diff ? I hope so. I'm not interested in what editors think is true, I'm only interested in what the sources say and how we can deal with that data. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I concur with Pluto's suggestions and Sean.Hoyland's follow up remarks, though I think Nableezy has made the right technical call, unfortunately, because it's realistic enough to appreciate that there is no clear behavioural issue in the extensive discussions that would call for the kind of corrective punishment Tariq's outline seems to suggest. Arbcom's remit is not to fix impossibly compromised pages.

Writing that recent discussions have been 'rekindled with a fire and desperation like never before', is hyperbole, and would appear hysterical were it not from the fact that that is not Tariq's style. Very level headed people (not myself) have honestly tried to work out a compromise and met a stone wall, but manners (AGF compliancy) have been almost impeccable. Just for the record, the humongous threads may be summed up in a thumbail form (Misplaced Pages#Jerusalem-lead for dummies), which you can without offense take as a time-saving device to avoid reading those massive archives.

There are two deeply problematical assertions in the lead, problematical because the form they take, is, per sources, self-contradictory, and represent poor compromises because of their clumsiness, which confuses two POVs with two facts, while pretending their is no POV problem.

A. 'Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such.'

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

• (a) Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
• (b) Jerusalem is not (recognized as) the capital of Israel.

• (a) is Israel’s POV (b) is the POV of virtually all other states.

B. '(Jerusalem) is Israel's largest city in both population and area, if East Jerusalem is included.

Put the sentence in propositional form, and you immediately see the problem.

• (a) Jerusalem is Israel’s largest city
• (b) Jerusalem is not Israel’s largest city (since the assertion includes East Jerusalem which in international law is outside of the state of Israel).

• (a) is the Israeli POV (b) is the non-Israeli POV.

In both these sentences, (a) an ostensibly factual proposition is asserted, and (b) then challenged as not true. The Israel POV is first asserted as a fact, and then denied as a fact.

Those who are unhappy at the way WP:NPOV appears to be deftly sidestepped here have endeavoured over several years to find a more balanced formula, in which the clash here between truth propositions that contradict each other would be replaced with a perspectival phrasing that clarifies neutrally the competing claims. The issue is resolvable by using the word 'claim' for both parties in (A). (B) should not be in the lead since it is based on a highly dubious if. Every suggestion that tries to address this has failed, in the face of a resolute preference for the text more or less as it stands, which, some argue, privileges the Israeli POV by prioritizing its basic claims as facts (is).Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

This request is an exact mirror of the problems on the article talk page.

• We have Dailycare, who agreed to the current wording as a compromise only to come back later, challenge it, POV tag it, change it while declaring he has "consensus by default" because whoever doesn't agree with him is part of the "hatikva brigade" and their views are not valid. Now he pretends the behavioral issue is with Tariq responding to his being a DICK and not with him being a dick in the first place.
• Pluto accuses whoever disagrees with him of gaming the system, as if having an opinion and stating it is some kind of sneaky underhanded attempt to play wikipedia's rules in order to corrupt it.
• Alertboatbanking, a pretty obvious sock which the resident "sockslayers" don't care about because he supports the result they want.
• Sean and Nishidani pretending the people they disagree with do not base their views on reliable sources, which is patently false and obviously dismissive.
• I assume ZScarpia will be here shortly to try to chill his opponents with threats, and we'll have a perfect microcosm. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 9}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/4)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statements, though I see the argument that a case would be useful here. Courcelles 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a good point below -- is there enough misconduct to justify the time spent on a case, or can we get to the point quicker, and where a case would surely end up, by ordering a binding RFC by motion as we have done in cases with similar problems in the past? (Abortion, Ireland, Muhammad Images, etc.) Courcelles 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements, but I'll note that this sort of dispute is exactly where WP:YESPOV, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I also await statements, but I note the apparent failure of community-bred compromise to hold for any great length of time, and I consider that failure to indicate that an arbitration case may be necessary. The failure of previous attempts at mediation is particularly concerning, and I welcome comment regarding why mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute. AGK 01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Just to make it clear up front, the Committee will not rule on the content-based part of the dispute (although I don't think the filer expects that); we will only review the allegations of misconduct. I'm also going to wait on more statements, but I do have a few questions for those posting statements to provide input on:
  1. What specific allegations of misconduct are you making? Tariq's initial statement mentions a number of different accusations made by a number of people towards a number of people, but doesn't seem to make any claims of his own. Dailycare's also alleges misconduct, but not by any specific user, and seems to focus more on content besides.
  2. Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?
  3. Is there some reason why existing discretionary sanctions will not suffice to resolve this dispute?
  4. Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
  5. If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case? Hersfold 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline As this case stands, I would suggest binding mediation or binding RfC, I'm not seeing enough "misconduct" to warrant a lengthy arbitration case hearing. SirFozzie (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like the parties to answer whether they think a binding RfC would be a good venue to attempt a more enforced compromise. As mentioned in the statements, this is a relatively "simple" question in terms of the actual content that is the source of the dispute--and ArbCom wouldn't and couldn't be saying what version is correct or proper, so it would be a lot of time and energy that might be better spent at RfC rather than ArbCom. Alternatively, I'd like to see all parties provide more examples of serious behavioral problems. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)