Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morven (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 21 May 2007 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/0/0): Decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:51, 21 May 2007 by Morven (talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/5/0/0): Decline)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

QZ deletion dispute

Initiated by badlydrawnjeff talk at 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The parties are gently reminded that the purpose of this page is to brief the arbitrators on why the case should be accepted, not to argue the merits. If you wish to carry out a discussion, you are invited to use the talk page. Thanks. Thatcher131 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

For ease or organization, diffs are linked next to the names above.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

In this case, there's threads at AN/I and at a number of associated talk pages. An RfC/Mediation would be useless due to the sheer numbers involved and the apparent lack of people willing to go through an entire discussion at this stage. Additionally, the use of DRV was trying to use another avenue, but this remedy was shot down before given a chance.

Statement by Badlydrawnjeff

On 4 May, Qian Zhijun, an article about a Chinese person who became famous for the web meme his appearance inspired and he himself cultivated, was nominated for deletion. After the requisite five day period, the discussion was closed as delete by Daniel (talk · contribs) (known at the time by his sig as Daniel Bryant, has changed his name in the period since), but later re-opened by Bryant following an appeal. Drini (talk · contribs) closed the discussion again not too long after as delete, citing that the meme might be notable, but the kid isn't. This was appealed at deletion review on 13 May, and eventually overturned by Xoloz (talk · contribs) on the grounds that the subject met all the relevant policies (having multiple reliable sources, the cornerstone of inclusion - one user put the rate of sourcing at 1.7 refs/sentence), and relisted the article on AfD. This discussion was quickly responded to by a number of people before being closed by thebainer (talk · contribs) less than an hour after the relisting. I then nominated it for deletion review following an appeal to thebainer which was declined. This is where the issues began, over the course of around 24 hours:

At this point, the AfD is closed. The discussion has spilled over to a number of project pages, talk pages, and userpages. It's emblematic of the general situation the project is currently encountering regarding the actual role of deletion review, the ability of administrators to use their abilities to shut down useful discussion, and the inability to have a consistent, clear appeals process, without even getting into the specifics of user conduct, which is highlighted by the numerous case of incivility and lack of good faith toward contributors on both sides of the debate, as evidenced by commentary below mine.

There are many things that ArbCom can (and should) look at here - the role of deletion review, the ability for administrators to accurately interpret discussions, whether a group of editors can choose to willfully ignore the policies laid out by a wider consensus by the greater community, the application of WP:BLP in regards to subjects who participate in their own fame, and the closing of discussions early, perhaps relevant to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war. This is about behavior, about process, about mechanisms, and about content, no matter what anyone else would like to frame it as.

The list of people above are simply people who were involved in the closing/unclosing/deleting/undeleting. I'd imagine ArbCom can sort that out during the proceedings, but at no point and I saying some of the involved parties are more "guilty" than others.

I urge ArbCom to accept this case. This sort of nonsense has to stop - the administrators are not reading the consensus properly, and us regular users are simply stuck in constant limbo because of this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Since the listing of this case, Viridae (talk · contribs) reopened the AfD, which was then re-closed by Doc glasgow. The page was then deleted by Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs) with the summary "This is deleted. No restorations. No full course AfDs. No process or politics. Human decency. BLP. The end," all points very much under debate and discussion. Whether anyone wants to add him as a party (or whether he adds himself) is not a decision I will make at this stage.

David Gerard's inline statement is a false statement in regards to my feelings, which is why I declined to continue the line of conversation with him initially. Is RfC rather worthless? Yes, it is. If there was any question that an RfC would actually result in anything here, it would have been pursued, but that would have likely been speedily deleted/closed by one of the involved parties as well, given the track record - without a doubt, if an RfC were attempted, the same rank incivility and vitriol being seen now would be put out there, and this ArbCom case would occur anyway. This is the last step - too many people are involved and there needs to be some sort of recourse at this stage.

To address SimonP's concern, I'm not sure where the implication that anyone's asking ArbCom to rewrite policies comes from. It is, at least, clear to me and others the actual issues surrounding this - how to change DRV (if necessary) is up to the community, but how policies and guidelines are implemented are absolutely under the ArbCom's purview, which I verified with arbitrators long prior to this case.

UPDATE: If this has to go to RfC, it'll goto RfC. 90% chance this ends back here anyway, given the responses here thus far. If the arbitrators see this as a content dispute, however, they've been strongly misled - the content is secondary to the behavior of numerous people involved, and a denial of this case only empowers that lunacy further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

It's a badly sourced living biography of an individual who is minorly notable at best. All the DRV votes on Misplaced Pages don't override our rules on verifiability and original research, particularly the harshness with which they need to be applied to living biographies of the minorly notable. "Consensus" in the above usage translates to "baying mob." Look for yourself if you think that characterisation's too sharp - the "keep" arguments are about process and votes, the "delete" arguments are about living bio and fundamental content guidelines - David Gerard 13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Doc

I'm tempted to say "Crap dies - screw process." But I actually think that not only is process being used to the detriment of the encyclopedia it is also being (ab)used by people who want to keep crap in the encyclopedia - who then scream "process abuse" when those who want to keep it out don't follow their version of "TEH RULES".

We've had countless debates on this. Four separate admins have now viewed the conclusion of that debate to be - delete. The petitioner complains about the speedy closure of the last two AfDs - but selectively forgets that the last AfD was generated by a speedy close of the DRV in its favour....Oh I let lost in the order of who dis what and which AfD lef to which DRV of which AfD (shrug). But, safe to say, there's a lot of selective process-wonking here.

Arbcom should probably reject this case. If they take it on, they will have no choice but to look at the merits of the content of the article (fine by me - but you don't like doing content). If they try to look at process without considering product - then short of saying "process must be followed regardless of product" (a view which is antithetical to Misplaced Pages - although works well in fantasy Jeff-opedia) - there is little they can do.--Doc 13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I'm not sure what the arbitration committee can do about this. It has refused in the past to do anything about the process-for-process-sake obsessions that facilitate this kind of trolling abuse of process.

I strongly endorse the statements of FCYTravis and Phil Sandifer. Misplaced Pages is not an engine for the advancement of mockery and denigration, even if newspapers have permitted themselves to be used in that way. Nor are Misplaced Pages's rules and the principles of fair discussion to be abused by prolonging debates endlessly until a desired outcome is obtained by the most persistent party.

The community is capable of asserting control here and deleting the article, and appears to have done so with a minimum of fuss. Let that be an end of it. If any administrator attempts to further facilitate this trolling, they should face desysopping. The community can deal appropriately with non-sysops who push this further.

Statement by Calton

Three AFDs and two DRVs wasn't enough processwankery, now we have this, yet another attempt to use bureaucracy as some sort of club. Call it wikilawyering, call it process for its own sake, call it trolling, call it vexatious litigation; whatever label you attach, it's a quintessential disruption to make a point. Badlydrawnjeff wrote that "This sort of nonsense has to stop" -- true, but not in the way he thinks it should. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved W.marsh

I haven't commented in any of these AFDs/DRVs... and personally I'm happy with a redirect, but some of the denial of discussion here could be a bit problematic, especially as you see there was increasingly less of a consensus as more and more people found out about this. Maybe ArbCom wants to look at why people keep closing these discussions early, despite wide disagreement and objection, and if that's a problem. But if ArbCom doesn't think it's a big deal, there's not much else to look at here except the content dispute, as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 13:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Matthew

First and foremost I'd primarily urge the arbitration committee to accept this to review behaviour by multiple administrators. After reviewing a cached (via Google) version of the article I am of the belief that the article does indeed successfully pass Misplaced Pages's notability criteria. What we must remember is that Misplaced Pages works on consensus. The actions by multiple administrators to "sweep it under the carpet" are disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, at best. The sheer activity that this provoked is indicative that the community desires a proper discussion—the activity of multiple administrators undermines this process. Matthew 13:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by The Evil Spartan

I actually was not part of any of the original discussions - and, for that matter, I think it may be non-notable and not worthy of an article. However, I am completely shocked and saddened that the administrators here do not seem to understand that ignoring all rules is probably not a good idea when the community (including many other administrators) does not have consensus on an issue; it seems completely contrary to common sense in doing so. The constant call that this is "process wonkery" seems to be a red herring to me - in fact, it's hardly process wonkery if a good part of the community believes the article is worthy of existence.

I would like to reiterate exactly what happened here - twice two uninvolved admins closed a DRV as "back to AFD", and both times, an involved admin decided to speedy close the debate in the favor of the way they had previously advocated. More, after people tried to appeal that illegal closing, they would not even allow the DRV to stay open - and as of now, it still is not open. I can hardly think of a worse abuse of admin power than this.

I would ask to the Arbitration committee to make three simple rulings -

  1. that a contentious DRV cannot be closed by an administrator who was involved in a previous AFD or DRV (much in the same way as administrator ought not turn down contentious {{unblock}} requests when the block was done by themselves). This seems common sense - I included the word contentious purposefully so that open and shut WP:SNOW cases are not necessarily involved (though even those, it would probably be wise for the involved admin to stay away from).
  2. that a DRV which results in undelete and sent to AFD cannot be ruled speedy closed delete (especially by a previously involved admin), as, if it passed the muster of DRV, it certainly does not qualify for speedy close.
  3. that this specific debate be reopened, as it has not been given a fair hearing - and that only a previously uninvolved admin can close it - and not speedily.

I also must say I find it interesting that all the people who so loudly were calling that "this whole thing is too much process-wonkery" are now claiming that this hasn't followed the proper channels by going through RFC. But I have serious doubts an RFC would truly accomplish any consensus - as indeed, the scope of this argument is large, people's opinions won't change, and it will not accomplish any of the meaningful reforms I mentioned above. It would just be more bickering between both sides.

Statement by Drini

Deletion review is supposed to review wether AFD was done properly or not. Nowadays, it's turned into a 2nd chance AFD where it's "fought" a second time if the 1st time was closed in a way people disagree. Now, improper AFDs are meant to be reviewed on DRV. But DRV is not by itself free of defects and problems, yet noone can challenge a DRV as there's no deletion review review. -- drini 13:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover Jeff says "a RFC or mediation would be useless due to the sheer number people involved", is assuming the proper mechanisms will without doubt fail without having tried them. Nowhere it's written that such processes can only be used if there's less or equal than 5 involved users. Arbitration is the LAST resort, and other avenues can't be skipped just because the user wanting the arbitration believes they won't give the results he wants. -- drini 14:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff has stated repeatedly on wikien-l that he can't be bothered with RFCs because he doesn't think they'll get the result he wants - David Gerard 14:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And finally, I think this is, at the core, a content dispute, jeff is fighting about some text to be kept or not, but it's disguising it as "reviewing DRV role, etc etc". However, all his diffs and his statement is about this particular incident, he's not requesting arbcom to "review mechanisms", he's asking arbcom to "rule on content". -- drini 14:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Yes Jeff won't take the proper course of action since he thinks it's going to be useless so, jumping to last resort without trying other venues first. -- drini 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Night Gyr

Frankly I think this whole thing is incredibly silly and pretty lame, but there's a very important issue at the heart. I've been an extensive participant in the debate, and noticed a few things. There's a oft-repeated claim that the article violates WP:BLP, but that is disputed. When an article may be noncompliant and in need of deletion, AfD is the forum for that. DRV is there to make sure AfDs were run correctly. The first AfD was a bit of a mess with the multiple closures, so a second run seems logical. The second afd was even more of a mess with the extremely premature closure, and the third was running fairly smoothly until closed prematurely. There's obviously a dispute over this article's compliance with policies, but the way to settle it is not with arbitrary admin action, it's with consensus gained from a full run of process, which it seems like a number of people are willing to disrupt. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Statment by DropDeadGorgias

I have to agree with Jeff. As a user that was uninvolved with the first two AFDs, I reviewed the original article and the original AFD, and I understand why the second AFD was opened. The original vote did not reach a clear consensus. Since then, I have been appalled that subsequent efforts to review this deletion have been completely blocked at every turn, without the possibility of discussion. The third AFD was opened by Viridae specifically because the DRV discussion indicated that users were not happy with the early closure of the first two AFDs, and the fact that this third AFD vote was closed early again does not speak well for the observance of process in the deletion space. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by John254

I would urge the Arbitration Committee to accept this case, and to issue an emergency injunction against any deletion or undeletion of Qian Zhijun until the matter is resolved, to avoid a serious wheel war. See the deletion log for this article, and Viridae's personal attack against the administrators who closed the previous AFD discussions . John254 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by FCYTravis

Yes, I agree this nonsense has to stop - but I have a wildly different idea of nonsense than Jeff does. The idea that our processes supersede the fundamental goal of writing an encyclopedia is pernicious at best, dangerous at worst. It has led to people repeatedly attacking admins for speedily deleting hoaxes, libelous attacks, pure junk and other articles that actively damage the encyclopedia, and it has led to endless reams of Wikitext defending patent nonsense. I urge the ArbCom to reject this request and continue to allow policy and good sense to judge what should and should not be included. I am a firm believer in eventualism. We do not need an article on this man right now. If he continues to be a fixture of interest on and off the Internet in a year, we can reconsider. But if, as with Brian Peppers, he was merely something laughed at on the Internet and then forgotten, we can allow him to quietly fade away. FCYTravis 14:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer

I just re-deleted the article, shortcutting the process of a third AfD. I would have salted the article too if someone hadn't beaten me to it. (And they did so only because I couldn't understand the damn salt process.) My reasons were simple - process, procedure, and such matters do not trump BLP, or, for that matter, human decency. It may be that this article is verifiable. It may be that this article is neutral, and well-sourced, and meets the letter of every policy we have on such matters. This is not the point, however. The article may be all of those things, but it is still wrong. It's an exercise in humiliation and mocking. It's bullying. It's beneath us. Our policies and processes are a guide to doing the right thing. In this case, the right thing is so obvious that we do not even need to check with our policies. Phil Sandifer 14:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would note, I support de-adminning anybody who restored this article or used admin powers in any other way to maintain its existence. Administrators have a responsibility to be more than process machines. They are obliged to be ethical - to represent the best of what this project is and can be. Keeping this article is wrong, and wrong in a way that we have actively decided not to be in the past. Administrators with no sense of social responsibility are a danger. Phil Sandifer 20:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mangojuice

I would like to see Arbcom take up this case because I think it would be nice to see some principles set down by Arbcom that put some basic sanity back into the admins when BLP is mentioned. (In this case, WP:BLP does not really apply to the article, which makes things even worse.) However, I really can't understand why this debate has attracted so many admins who feel that it's perfectly okay to ignore the input of the community, and ignore the reasons we have a deletion process, and simply delete the article out of hand or close debates out of process. This is very damaging: if the original AfD had just come to an ordinary, sensible conclusion we wouldn't have this ArbCom case, two more out-of-process closed AfDs and 3 DRVs, plus an ANI thread and a lot of shouting and bad feeling on both sides. Mangojuice 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: thanks to some very unfortunate wheel warring at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3, I ended up full-protecting the debate. In my opinion I may have protected the wrong version, but that's what is required in an unbiased application of WP:PPOL. If I wasn't an involved party before, I certainly am now; adding myself to the list momentarily. Mangojuice 16:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Viridae

I came upon this mess by way of a posting to ANI. Editors had noted that they were very unhappy with how the case had been handled so I went and read through the deletion review debate. I then read through the then two afds and the other deletion review and weighed up all the arguments in the most recent one. The arguments for me were either IAR style/IDONTLIKEIT "keep deleted", BLP issues (which Mangojuice seemed to have successfully argued were ridiculous) and "the deletions were out of process" style overturn votes. On what I took to be the weight of consensus (considering that DRV is there to argue the process, not the merits of the article - that is an afd matter) I closed the debate as relist, left a note explaining my actions and opened a procedural afd. This then ran for a few hours, and seemed to be heading to a keep or no consensus result (who knows, it never made it past a day...), and everything seemed to be going very nicely, with the community getting their say on the matter when I returned to wikipedia tonight to find that the afd had been speedily closed and the article deleted despite emerging consensus that the article should be kept. This made me really pissed off, to see my good faith effort to conduct a calm and reasonable debate with the community deciding what they wanted to do with the article - an effort to resolve the issue once and for all, closed so out of process and against consensus. I reversed the closing, wrote a really pissed off note to any and all who wanted to close the debate without allowing the community to have its say and undeleted the article to continue the debate (yes, wheel warring, and something I whole heartedly regret - it has been my rule to never undo another admins actions without either careful consideration (ie unblock template answering) and or discussion with the admin themselves). I ask arbcom to take this case on because the whole affair has been a farce. I see no other way for the community to resolve this without that dissolving into a further quagmire. There has been 3 afds and 2 deletion review debates in a very short amount of time. I believe the last two afds were closed ENTIRELY out of process, without the community being taken into account at all. I also believe that a significant amount of the community (at least of those involved) believed the first afd to be out of process as well. Viridae 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer SimonP's decline reason, I believe this case is not about the content itself, but rather the inability of quite a number of admins to allow any sort of deletion debate on this article to run for its full term. There is quite a lot of bad feeling about this article from all those who participated in the debates and had their views ignored. Personally I would just like to see an afd run to course and be closed by an uninvolved admin but I have no faith in that happening at the moment. I would personally be very happy to abide by any consensus reached in such an afd. Viridae 15:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Kingboyk

All I want to say is that if our "notability" guidelines warrant keeping this, the guidelines need to be changed. Around 10% of all Misplaced Pages's articles are on living people, and many of them are folks who have been in 2 or 3 newspapers. By having such lenient notability and sourcing requirements we are danger in becoming a newspaper archive, not an encylopedia.

As for the case, I'm not sure it's worth accepting. The article is a red link now so we got the right result. --kingboyk 15:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sean William

This is dumb. Sean William 01:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Stifle

I find myself saying this a lot, but I'd urge declension by the arbitrators as the matter does not appear to have visited previous WP:DR fora like WP:RFC, and a lot of it appears to be a content dispute. Unless, that is, they consider this to be a case of wheel warring in which case it should of course be considered. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mister.Manticore

My involvement in this situation has been minimal, I don't recall noticing the initial AFD at all, or the DRV. When I saw the recent re-AFD, I was surprised it was closed so early. Then I saw it up for AFD again, and I decided to review the article, and I saw it was both reasonably cited and a look at Google-news showed me it was covered by a number of sources. So I said keep. This may be disputed by other users, but unfortunately, their method of doing so has not been to offer arguments representing their position, but rather to summarily act to close discussion, block consensus and delete this article in what I consider an abuse of admin priveleges and a desire not to develop consensus, but to silence people whose views are soundly based on existing policy. I urge the Arbitration committee to take action on this case because I'm afraid that there is little to no chance of any of the parties who acted inappropriately in this case recognizing the faults in their behavior on their own. Thus sadly, instead of mutual wisdom, the big stick of arbitration must be used. Mister.Manticore 15:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I've seen a couple of comments by Arbitrators that seem to indicate to me a fundamental misunderstanding of the problems here, I'd like to add that I feel this has almost nothing to do with BLP, or the policies of AFD or DRV, but rather with the specific actions taken by administrators to close discussions and delete a page rather than to reach consensus. The content of the page are almost irrelevant here. Thus I request that any of the arbitrators who have declined the case to reconsider their reasons, and that those who are undecided, to examine the real issues here, and not focus on the particular article. Mister.Manticore 00:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MalcolmGin

I'm not directly involved in this issue, but have been arguing similar issues to User:Badlydrawnjeff on DRV, IAR and AfD for the past few months. I am feeling mightily excluded from both consensus-making process and decision-making in general in DRV and AfD though some progress is happening to help me feel like my opinions are at least being considered and interacted with on IAR. Regardless, there are a lot of involved dynamics in the way we're trying (and apparently failing) to work out the issues involved in the larger processes of DRV and AfD and in general how admins interact with their powers and with lowly editors that I think the Arbitration Committee can help us all sort out that are typified in the issues surrounding Qian Zhijun and how we're all using and not using the Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and procedures. I would love to feel like the contributions I make to the article space will in general be useful to Misplaced Pages, and that my contributions won't be semi-randomly removed by various folks involved in Misplaced Pages (editors/admins) without good cause. Right now, I'm not so sure, and would love to see the Arbitration Committee bring a little order into the chaos. The Committee is the ultimate authority unless the Board steps in and sorts it all out. We apparently cannot agree about boundaries or proper behavior. Please help us sort this out. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Update: I do not mean any drama queenery or other emo attention-getting tactics when I say this, but mean it as a measure to the Arbitration Committee of just how excluded I (a new editor) feel by process and established admins and editors in general (with some specific exceptions): Whether the Arbitration Committee chooses to hear this issue, and, if they do, how it turns out, will pretty much make or break my commitment to continuing to contribute to Misplaced Pages at all. This is the degree to which these issues matter to me, and this is the degree of my current feeling of helplessness to do any good that won't immediately be reverted individually, unilaterally and out of hand affects me. Consensus is not something that is static, and I feel that many of the admins involved in this issue seem to be referring to an older consensus that did not involve me in its decision-making. As I've said to Radiant! in the past, I think it behooves all editors at Misplaced Pages (including admins) to figure out how to integrate the constant change that's inherent in a constantly changing population such as Misplaced Pages has into the processes that surround the bureaucracy it has developed. Consensus changes. Let's deal with that honestly, please, and I think since individuals and blocs of editors and admins have consistently demonstrated an inability to deal with that change, it's important to me that the Arbitration Committee handle the issue head-on. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

My comments pretty much echo those by Doc Glasgow, David Gerard, Guy and Tony Sidaway, and I firmly believe there was clear consensus shown throughout all the various deletion debates and deletion review discussions that the article should be deleted.

Now, I am assuming the repeated re-opening of the deletion discussion and un-deletion of the article are good faith actions by those who wish to apply policy to the letter, however I feel that the consensus for deletion was being ignored, which is the sole reason I closed the 3rd deletion debate and deleted the article. Nick 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

Whatever the final outcome on deletion of this particular article is, I believe that the ArbCom should examine whether or not repeated "speedy closings" of discussions, especially when other discussions have reached different results, constitute a wheel war. It certainly looks like a wheel war to me. When a matter is contentious like this, it is often particularly important to allow process to run. Frustrating as it may be, it can prevent this. (As for the merits, I know ArbCom doesn't do content issues, but I must have missed the part in BLP that said "You may not have well-sourced articles on living persons, when the subject of the article even consented to interviews in some of those sources.") Seraphimblade 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mbimmler

This is pure wikilawyering and an exercise in false process. It is our purpose to write an encyclopedia. To do this, we have to decide on whether to include certain subjects or not. In order to structure this discussion, means as AFD and DRV have been created. But they are means to an end, not vice versa. If a broad range of experienced editors agrees that the article should be (speedy) deleted it is unimportant whether it does so in two hours or in two weeks. This article is clearly non-notable. It doesn't matter whether the subject like his prominence or gives interviews or receives some media coverage, he is still non-notable and will be forgotten in two years, if not one. As has been pointed out by the closer of the second AFD discussion, this article has been discussed quite lengthily. The meme might be notable but not the person. If we want coverage (aka articles) on single incidents, fine. But we should not write biographies about persons who are only notable due to being invoved in this single incident. This (writing about the person instead of the meme) violates the spirit of BLP and this is a far stronger argument that all arguments à la "he has had 4 mainstream media reports". The first AFD said delete, after nearly 8 days of discussion. In the first DRV, there were again 5 1/2 days of discussion. Then, for some reason that I honestly don't understand, it went back to AFD where during one hour broad consensus was established that the article should be deleted, nota bene also by many OTRS members who are pretty experienced in matters of BLPs and notability issues. There was yet again an appeal (wikilawyering, I say it), and again, even a very quick glance shows that most people endorse the deletion. Again, the "keep deleted" votes give a nice overview about senior, experienced and trustworthy editors. Thus, the DRV should have been closed as "keep deleted" and this is what I did. It is a real shame that the DRV has now again been closed as "relist" which is diametrically against the opinion of most of the participants in the DRV. The only thing that will happen now is a 3rd AFD discussion with inevitably the same result. Believe it or not, this article isn't fit for Misplaced Pages and this won't be changed by a 15th appeal to DRV. --Mbimmler 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved brighterorange

Out-of-process controversial administrative actions are wheel warring: "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." This situation is now impossible to resolve through consensus, because DRVs and AFDs are being closed speedily. I'd like to see ArbCom take it up.

(Also, I strongly disagree that this is pure process-wankery. It is not at all obvious that a proper AFD that allowed time for discussion and improvement of the article would have resulted in a deletion. In fact, I think the opposite: the final AFD had almost twice as many keep opinions as delete. Allowing the community at large—rather than an empowered few—participate in that discussion according to the normal timeframe is healthy for the content of the encyclopedia and for the morale of its editors.) — brighterorange (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Iamunknown

I haven't participated in any of the discussions, and am only aware of them from viewing the controversy on multiple pages, including user talk pages, ANI, DRV and here. I would like to comment, however, that I think arbitration would be appropriate given the egregious wheel war that took place, not just by using the deletion bit, but by revert warring on multiple pages in DRV and AfD. This has gotten too complicated, and I find it frustrating that admins seem so willing to wheel war and use the vandalism rollback tool inappropriately. I guess I'd like it all sorted out, some principles laid down and some remedies imposed. Thanks, Iamunknown 20:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the Arbitratiors consider this "premature". This was a wheel war. We have no other form of dispute resolution that can impose binding solutions; what else would you recommend that we do? --Iamunknown 18:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Prolog

This case includes several users heavily involved in the debate using admin tools and making unilateral decisions based more on their personal opinions and moral views than the community consensus, and I urge ArbCom to accept it. After all the drama resulted in a third Afd, it seemed like we can finally have a mature discussion and no more controversy is needed. But, as before, the discussion was denied, this time by Nick's, previously involved in this debate, unilateral, poor and out-of-process closure, resulting in the deletion of a very well-sourced article on a notable subject, against a clear and strong Afd consensus to keep. It seems that certain admins think that this article just needs to be deleted or "killed", although there are no BLP issues with it. Administrators can not enforce their ethical views on the project, so when this "kill it" attitude results in controversial speedy closures and deletions, it becomes misuse of admin privileges. Prolog 20:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Neo-Jay

Copied from User talk:Neo-Jay Ryan Postlethwaite 21:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun 3 was 13 for Keep and just 9 for Delete or Merge. Nick ignored the community's consensus and closed the discussion on the ground of the two previous deletion discussions. If so, why do we need a third discussion at all? If he wants to challenge the decision of the deletion review, he may request for arbitration and should not abuse his administrator's power to block certain community consensus that he disagree.--Neo-Jay 17:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Stammer

If this is not a wheel war, I don't know what it is. It may be pretty grotesque to call in ArbCom to tell the kids, er, I mean the admins, how to behave, but it seems that's the only option left. Stammer 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

Have some common decency.

I'd also encourage the ArbCom to look at exactly who was campaigning for deletion in all this — highly-respected administrators, ex-arbitrators , ex-Office, current OTRS, etc. — and ask yourself, who really has the better judgement when it comes to BLP issues? Daniel 23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

Come on guys, do we really need the arbitration committee to come and solve all our problems? The dispute is easily settled with discussion. We can let it rest for a few days and re-evaluate then. I propose we let the AfD run fully, no cutting it short, then let a completely uninvoled administrator evaluate and then close it - simple really. No need to make work for an already very busy group of people. Is anyone up for that? Monday we start the AfD and in a weeks time we can put this sorry state of affairs behind us. With a couple of the recent arbitration requests that have been filed and accepted, it looks like we're falling apart as a community. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Amarkov

Some of the discussion here seems to be irrelevant to the actual problem. The problem is that admins are wheel warring over what should happen. Whether or not the article should have been deleted, whether or not people are being pointless process wonks, wheel warring is not good. Thus, Arbcom should accept this case, to deal with the not-good wheel warring. -Amarkov moo! 05:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Lankiveil

Although only peripherally involved in this case (I voted in the most recent AfD), I am of the opinion that the original DRV should not have happened. Using DRV as a "last chance saloon" for deleted articles is not what it was intended for. Other than that, I concur largely with User:Drini above.

I also concur with the opinion of arbitrator SimonP however, that this is not the correct place to bring this dispute, as ArbCom has no juridiction over XfD, DRV, etc. Lankiveil 07:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by DESiegel

I agree, with the statements by Badlydrawnjeff, by MalcolmGin, by Viridae, and particularly by The Evil Spartan. I think that the ArbCom shouild acept this case. It is true that not all steps of dispute resolution have been tried. But I engaged several of the other parites on their talk pages, as did other editors. There was significant discussion at ANI, and in the DRV threads. Most of the involved editors had strong views that seemed unlikely to ve changed by an RfC, and an RfC with so many people involve is likely IMO to be unfocused and unproductive. (Although if an RfC is held I will surely participate.)

I agree with The Evil Spartan's three requests of the ArbCom. I feel that those intent on closing this discussion have been uneilling to meet and discuss the points raised by those who disagree with them, and seem unduly insitant that the article be deleted, and all discussion of the matter stop at once. I feel that Drini's closure of the AfD did not reflect the consensus of the discussiona t the tiem he closed it, and that it was in any case an inappropriate moment to close discussion, in view of the previous events.I fel that the closure of the second Afd was highly improper, and effectivly ingnored the DRV discussion, and was disrepectful of the editors who expressed views there, and particualrly of Xoloz's close of the DRV.

Seriously presented, policy-based arguments should be met, not ignored, in reaching consensus.

Discussion closes are intended to have some finality. They should not normally be simply reverted, much less warred over. AfD closes can be reveiwed at DRV, but should not be simply reverted (except by the closing admin, if s/he feels that an error was made). DRV closes also should be respected. DRV closes that call foir a relistign should normally be followed by a new, clean Afd discussion, that runs full length, (particularly if early closing has been an issue in the previous AfD) to be as sure as possible of a full consensus. Ignoring the DRV result, by speedy closing the resulting AfD before many who are known to be intersted have a chance to express a view, implies that rules of procedure and civility do not matter. It invites anarchy. Specifically it invites wheel-warring, as everyone involved ignores all rules and process to do what ever he or she thinks best. That is what happened in this case. The Arbcom should try to ensure that it does not happen again, or at leaast is publicly seen to be unacaptable. Closure of deletion discussions by obviusly involved or biased editors is also highly improper, and should not be tolerated. DES 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In response to User:Mackensen: the question is IMO not "how conservatively BLP should be interpreted." nor whether the article should have been deleted. It is whether an editor may over-ride a DRV closure of RELIST by speedy closing the resulting AfD. Also, I thought I had seen it said that RfC was not supposed to be used as merely a setup for an Abitration hearing, nor was it a required premlimianry. Was I mistaken? DES 01:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Pilotguy

This is the stupidest RFAr I have ever seen. // Pilotguy hold short 19:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Johnleemk

Having reviewed the various debates and the deleted revisions, it seems clear to me that the article was more about the meme rather than Qian. I believe that the decision to delete was not correct, because a redirect to the meme article was useful - though I suppose revert warring over this probably made it impractical. That, however, is not the issue at hand.

The problem appears to be, first, what does the BLP policy exactly state, and was it applied correctly? The second is, was there improper wheel warring here and an overriding of consensus?

These are not easy questions to answer - and for this reason, I think an arbitration case could be warranted - but not until RfC has been tried. If the RfC indicates there is a lack of consensus among the community over these questions, and that the community feels those involved have not acted properly, then and only then can this arbitration request be accepted. I have not seen any good explanation for why we should circumvent the minimum requirements of dispute resolution - odd, considering all the process wonkery that's going on, especially since this is a process that actually makes sense here - this is the controversial kind of thing that RfC exists for, to get views from all over the community on a question that has been largely confined to those involved in the deletion process and the article.

For this reason, I urge the Arbcom to reject this case. Johnleemk | Talk 20:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Oh for fuck's sake. Jeff, please drop the stick and step away from the horse.

Addendum: Prolog, no unilateral actions were taken, as far as I can see. The logs of the admin irc channel and OTRS mailing list back the extensive discussions in the debate pages and noticeboards, no admin acted without considerable support. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:GRBerry

At its root, this is a case about wheel warring and a refusal by certain admins to allow the community to form a consensus. Cases about wheel warring are things that the ArbComm almost always accepts, and an RFC here is very unlikely to serve as any more than part one of the evidence page for the eventual ArbComm case.

I am not surprised at all to hear that IRC activity took place, and am prepared to accept Guy's statement that "no admin acted without considerable support". That includes the admins that undeleted the article, as they had considerable support. Holding conversation on IRC likely prevented the formation of consensus and is actually part of the problem here. I hope that those IRC logs will be made public, the sooner the better. GRBerry 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Recuse from any clerk activity in this case. Newyorkbrad 13:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
All commenters are reminded that statements here are not to be used to argue in your favor. Statements here are to be used to explain to the arbitrators why or why not to accept the case. If the case is accepted, you may present your opinions and evidence then. Picaroon (Talk) 18:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Not being active, and not having even visited this page for probably over a year, this is probably a formality - but I recuse myself, since I want to make a brief statement on this case. Johnleemk | Talk 20:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Requests for clarification

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

Request for clarification from user:Andries reg. Sathya Sai Baba

See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned Can Andries still edit the article Jesus, Vishnu, Shirdi Sai Baba, Shiva, and other Hindu saints and deities, even though Sathya Sai Baba claims to be a reincarnation of all of them? These claims are generally not accepted by the followers of Jesus etc. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries

Thanks in advance for your answer. Andries 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Andries comparison to Jesus, etc. is grossly misleading. If the reviewer would review my comments on the request for arbitration enforcement, it would be appreciated. Thank you. Vassyana 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is it misleading? Sathya Sai Baba claims to be an incarnation of Jesus too, though it will be clear that the relationship is only accepted by followers of Sathya Sai Baba, and not by follower of Jesus. Same for Shiva, Vishnu and Shirdi Sai Baba, Rama, and other deities and Hindu saints. Andries 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The relationship between Shirdi Sai Baba and Sathya Sai Baba on which Vassyana's bases his complaint against me was added by user:Kkrystian on 17 May after I edited the article Shirdi Sai Baba for the last time (on 6 May) without citing reputable source. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian. Andries 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, Andries may edit these to the degree that they are not related to Sathya Sai Baba; in other words, not to edit-war with people over Sathya Sai Baba mentions in those articles. Mention of Sathya Sai Baba in those articles should be minimal if not outright nonexistent in any case; otherwise would violate the prohibition on undue weight contained in NPOV. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal from Olaf Stephanos

In the recent Falun Gong arbitration case, User:Mcconn was placed on revert parole. However, according to CU performed by User:Dmcdevit, we have found out that the banned editor User:Samuel Luo has been using a wide variety of sockpuppets during the course of the last year. Among them are User:Pirate101, User:Yueyuen (an involved editor in the ArbCom case!), User:Kent888, User:Kent8888 and User:Mr.He, probably newly registered users User:Foullou, User:Shimanan, User:IamYueyuen, User:Gtyh and User:Fufg as well. Most incidents of Mcconn's revert warring took place against these sockpuppets. Therefore, I plead the ArbCom to lift the revert parole that was imposed on him, as it hardly feels justified in the light of this recent information. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mcconn needs to have the self control to deal with other users if they disagree about content. And follow the proper channels for dealing with problem users. This includes users that are using sock puppets. FloNight 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there any chance for him to get his parole lifted if he now begins to edit in a completely respectable and proper manner? ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Although, I'm not exactly sure why he needs to revert. If for a period of time (at least 2-3 months, I think) he shows self control in his editing, he can request his revert parole be modified or dropped. The key thing is for him to show that he can work collaboratively with other users. FloNight 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This would seem to be inconsistent application of the COI rule. FG activists are allowed not only to edit, but also can be let off the hook after 2-3 months. Olaf has demonstrated much incivil behavior yet he hasn't even been warned about it. Yet less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen have been banned for eternity, and even Tomananda for their 'activism'. This is direct contradiction in logic. I have asked some Arbitrators on this matter, but no explanation has been given apart from 'dealing with the worst offenders'. Surely ArbCom should be aware by now that excommunicating one side at the total expense of the other will only result in worse edit wars. If Wiki FG-related entries wants to avoid being a battleground, temporary protection is not enough; we need a balance. Can Checkusers be done on ALL FG editors? If we are to defend human rights (e.g. all persons are created equal) and freedom on Wiki, we need to ensure fairness for all users, even if you disagree with their beliefs and principles. Please tell me if what I said was objectionable or disagreeable with any Wiki policies; whilst the ArbCom's hard work is always admired and appreciated (because I myself could never make that kind of commitment!), we need to ensure fairness and avoid falling into propaganda traps and ensure, in a way, balance-neutrality not only in principles, but also in the APPLICATION of principles to ALL users. Jsw663 12:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have apologized for all incivility I might be guilty of. The situation was quite tense with Samuel and Tomananda, and their legacy lingers on until we've reformed the articles. By the way, like I've said several times before (but never getting a response from you), it is quite uncivil on your part to keep accusing "pro-Falun Gong vandals/apologists" of vandalizing your user pages, even though we found the guy (User:NuclearBunnies) who made matching edits. I have nothing against a checkuser for all involved editors. I know for certain that none of "our party" is using sockpuppets. There will be no edit wars as long as everybody adheres to the policies. I'm not here to insist on blatantly substandard content like the puppetmaster(s) from Frisco. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 11:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention that your distinction between "less controversial alter egos of Sam like Yueyuen" and User:Samuel Luo per se sounds pretty twisted. We're talking about the same guy! Doubtless, "Yueyuen" had to act in a slightly different manner; he was a useful helper in some revert wars and creating illusory support for Samuel's position on the talk page. The same goes for User:Pirate101 and User:Mr.He. User:Chinatravel, on the other hand, was meant to cover up the fact that Sam was pursuing other agendas as well, such as defending the CCP's official viewpoint on the Tiananmen massacre. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an official response to my above paragraph(s). The pro-FG vandal/apologist is the one hiding behind the IP addresses supposedly from South Korea. See my user page for a brief list of IP addresses. Users like NuclearBunnies did not vandalize my user or user talk page, so I see no reason why I need to condemn them on my user or user talk page. It's not like I accuse you of bias or incivility on my user page, right? Or are you trying to censor me too? Do you see me demanding that you edit your user page for pro-FG bias?
I mention the less controversial alter egos because my above paragraph should show that I am still not satisfied with hazy explanations that link THAT many user accounts. If they all originated from SFO, does that mean they are necessarily the same user? And why the finding that Tom + Sam are the same people after establishing they were not earlier??? I think linking User:Chinatravel is a perfect instance of what I consider to be dangerously similar to McCarthyism - witch-hunting all pro-China users and linking them in some conspiracy theory as some kind of ridiculous network or whatever. Jsw663 21:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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 (4/0/0/1)

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 12 active arbitrators, so a majority is 7.

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)
To answer a few of the qualms: I, too, was at first a little hesitant about any such appeals method. But the email from Koavf indicated that he had tried other means of recourse, including emailing the blocking admin (Dmcdevit) previously, with no reply. He attempted an unblock request in January of this year, which was denied; people told him to take his appeals process to the Arbitration Committee because he was blocked indefinitely. Whether or not it's technically a "ban" seemed a bit irrelevant; people pointed him to us, citing the appeals process. It was clear that, with that advice having been given to him, that the Arbitration Committee would be the only ones able to listen to his case and act. With that in mind and the appeals of all bans in our "jurisdiction", I was still a little bit hesitant about how to proceed. After receiving his email, I forwarded (like I would any other email pertaining to ArbCom business) his email to the mailing list and asked for thoughts on how to proceed. It was suggested by another Arbitrator that we take the option of unblocking him, and placing him on standard revert parole - his block log and prior discussions indicated that this was one of the primary reasons that hindered him from being a productive editor. Several Arbitrators agreed with this proposal, at which point I asked for advice on how to proceed - how would we treat this? Another Arbitrator responded that it should be treated like a standard appeals and placed in the "clarification" section. With sufficient time given and no objections heard, I proceeded with placing this request on here.
Regarding the lack of a complete case for this matter: this was something, as I mentioned above, that I asked for feedback on from my fellow Arbitrators, and they all seemed comfortable with this method. I saw little merit in starting a new case; unlike the typical case that we accept, there would be no need for a workshop, proposed decisions, evidence, etc. - the only thing that we were considering is whether or not to unblock this particular editor, and if so, whether or not to place him on standard revert parole. Other editors are, of course, free to comment here, but as no Arbitrator had opposed placing this unblock to a vote, I didn't see a need to vote on whether or not to "accept" a case - an Arbitrator either believes that the editor should be unblocked, or he doesn't. (Of course, they are all free to propose alternate solutions and remedies.) It seemed redundant to vote on "accepting" the case and then voting again on the one proposed action, when, in essence, anyone accepting the case would be supporting the unblock, while those against opening would be against the unblock. Again, no objections were heard at all in the time this was discussed on our mailing list, and we all looked into the circumstances surrounding his unblock carefully.
Those are the reasons why I felt comfortable proceeding with this request, having discussed this and being advised to proceed in this manner by other Arbitrators. It should also be noted that I contacted Dmcdevit as well after I placed this appeal from Koavf on here, notifying him of the appeal. Perhaps I should have contacted all the other editors who discussed the indefinite block in the first place; if so, I apologize. I - and the rest of the committee - of course respect and understand your qualms about this, but I hope I've made clear why I felt comfortable proceeding in the manner I did. (If I didn't address any of your concerns inadvertantly, please let me know and I'll do so.) Additional feedback and comments about the process or case are, as always, welcome. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so concerned about the lack of a case, or "jurisdiction" issues—I've always felt that simple cases should be resolved with open motions, not full cases, but the previous ArbCom never warmed to my idea—but that this block was uncontested, and ArbCom's action came out of the blue. If any of the arbitrators, upon receiving Koavf's email, felt that lifting the ban was a good idea, simply saying so as a respected administrator on ANI would have been enough. The problem here is that by using arbitration to make a simple admin decision–especially when, if you had contacted any of us who had discussed it previously, it would be clear that limiting the ban to some kind of probation is not that controversial–ArbCom seems to be limiting admin discretion in favor of sending more cases to arbitraton instead. (I have a laundry list of users community banned by adminstrators and upheld by the community who still want to be unblocked, probably several a week, if ArbCom would like to have at them all. )Dmcdevit·t 05:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this appeal should have been exposed to public. No one from the list of people who participated at the AN/I discussion have been informed of this process. I think people should be informed at least.

Anyway, as i had stated in the AN/I back on November 2006, i have no objection to see Koavf contributing again but it remains conditional (partial ban - see AN/I). I still think the same. In parallel, i don't understand that if they revert more than once a day they'd only be blocked for 24h. Why not longer? Why not putting them on a probation period with stricter conditions instead? Anyway, i assume good faith and would not object if Justin is willing to do as they say. I'd have no problems in seeing them contributing again but totally POV-free the same way they have done at Citizendium. -- FayssalF - 19:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FayassalF. I'm surprised that the arbcom is willing to unblock someone banned with a clear community consensus per discussion on the incident noticeboard and without a strong reason to involve itself. (This does not look like a case that would be accepted if it had been brought back in November.) I therefore think this looks like bypassing the community, which should only be done when it is clear the arbcom can do a better job of resolving the dispute than the community can. That said, I would welcome Koavf back if he promises not to edit war anymore, but has he done so? If so, where? Picaroon (Talk) 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the Arbitration Committee taking cases like this, so long as the community is given the opportunity of final appeal (i.e. if ArbCom reverses a ban, the community can restore the ban after another discussion). Ral315 » 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things here. If the community would have the final word than why do we have to go through here? Also, who would define the conditions? -- FayssalF - 02:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
To the first point, it wouldn't be a requirement to go through here, merely another way of reversal. Very rarely would there be a case where a ban reversed by ArbCom would be questionable (I'd argue almost never would this happen). Second, the conditions would be defined by the cases where ArbCom chooses to step in, and afterward, in the cases where someone appeals the ban on WP:AN or elsewhere, and the community agrees that the case is worth looking at. Ral315 » 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks and partially agree. Because i heard about a 24h sanction in case of a 3RR infraction. Isn't this applied to all users? If the unblock would be executed under such conditions than the community would surely disagree. But where, how and when? -- FayssalF - 02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I would assume that this wouldn't apply to any short-term blocks - any ArbCom action taken on a community decision would take at least a week, presumably - I'm talking about this covering blocks of, say, 1 month or more. But since this is a rare case currently, I don't think any real rules on it need to be defined. Ral315 » 03:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is any kind of official motion really required? This is basically a community ban. By my understand, any admin can undo a community ban, since the definition of a community ban is simply a ban that no admin is willing to undo. I would suggest that someone unblock him unilaterally and then if anyone wants him reblocked they can start a full arbcom case. --Tango 10:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in addition to being Arbcom members, they are still members of the Misplaced Pages administration community. And as such, any one of them can decide a community ban was inappropriate and overturn it unilaterally. It's patently ludicrous to argue that the Arbcom may not do something in summary motion that they can do as ordinary administrators. It does not really need majority vote either, simply one of the admins saying "I'm dubious over this ban, if people want a ban they should take it to full Arbitration." --Barberio 10:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Motions in prior cases

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



Archives

Categories: