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 Daniel (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 28 February 2007 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0): 0/0/0/1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:40, 28 February 2007 by Daniel (talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0): 0/0/0/1)(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

2004 Madrid train bombings

Initiated by Southofwatford at 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Igor21 ]

Randroide ]

Larean01 ]

Raystorm ]

Burgas00 ]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Attempt to create new neutral main article ]

Attempted RFC ]

Attempted request for mediation 1 ]

Attempted request for mediation 2 ]

Latest RFC ]

Statement by Southofwatford

The articles on the 2004 Madrid train bombings , together with its subsidiary article, Aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, have been subject to a lengthy dispute that has been running since July last year. It is difficult to summarise all issues in such a long dispute. The key question in the dispute has been the treatment to be given to conspiracy theories concerning the Madrid bombings. There are also important but secondary issues, most notably the acceptability of sources for information concerning the bombings. Although each user has their own opinions, the main division of opinion is between those who believe that the main article should not be dominated by discussion of these theories, and one user who supports the conspiracy theories and who believes they should be given at least equal weight.

We currently have a situation where the disputed nature of the affected article is not being respected ], ], and since the New Year the dispute has deteriorated sharply as a result of this. A continuation of things as they are at the moment makes the outbreak of an edit war at some point very probable; as we have a situation where one user wants to carry out unilateral and disputed changes, whilst all others involved in the dispute have voluntarily avoided any significant editing of the article while attempts to resolve the dispute are made. In the end such a situation becomes unsustainable as the article continues to shift towards the point of view of a single party to the dispute. Also, articles tangentially related to the subject are being “infected” by insertion of POV material concerning the conspiracy theories in an attempt to circumvent the dispute, leading to multiple references to the same issues appearing in different places.

I have tried to launch two mediation processes and one RfC, none of these have got off the ground. Prior to this there was a significant effort made to find a wording for a neutral main article that would permit the separation of the conspiracy theories and other controversial issues into a separate article; this effort was also unsuccessful despite getting close to a reasonable conclusion. I have reached the conclusion that arbitration is needed to settle the key issues, a point of view endorsed by an administrator who has been witness to the dispute ]. In my opinion the article as it currently stands is simply not useful as a reference on the bombings and associated events. Despite very substantial edits, and the addition of more recent information, it is in many ways in a worse state than the version which existed 12 months ago. Unfortunately, the politicisation of the bombings in Spain has led to the English account of the train bombings being targeted as a political platform.

Let me add a brief comment on the question raised by jpgordon - the key issue at the heart of the dispute is the treatment of the conspiracy theories within the article(s). If it becomes an issue of particular users it is because we have been unable to reach any solution to the dispute - Randroide has resisted any solution which does not give equal (or greater) weight within the article to the conspiracy theories. Southofwatford 19:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Randroide

I want a "diff intensive" statement, and that requires time (one has to check hundreds of diffs).

See a "work-in-progress" statement at User talk:Randroide/ArbCom statement.

Plase tell me if my statement is inappropriate.

Randroide 18:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {username}

Clerk notes

Talkpage note left for Randroide on the appropriate scope of his statement. Newyorkbrad 19:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Comment: I can't really tell from this exactly what we're being asked to arbitrate. Are particular users behaving badly? That we can maybe do something about. I know from poking around this is more than a content dispute, but the case presented does not show that. --jpgordon 17:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Flameviper

Initiated by Flameviper II at 12:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

 Clerk note: This appears to be an appeal of an indefinite ban, discussed here. Thatcher131 13:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yanksox has been manipulative in his representation of me. If you want proof that he's unfit, I'll remind you that he was later desysopped. This abuse of admin powers has been discussed extensively on the mailing list. If this account is blocked, please go here or here. Please, watch those pages and listen to me.


Statement by Flameviper

I apologize for doing this out of process, however I am a blocked user and my time here is limited (before this account is blocked also). Thus, I don't have the time to take this up with the offender.

To start of my evidence-fueled tour da force, here's a quote from Yanksox.

"I'm guessing this guy is a failed /b/tard. He's spitting out 4chan memes like a total newbie. I don't have an issue with this guy's being a 4channer, but his actual contribution to the encyclopedic aspect of this site has been minimal and barely marginal at best. Most of the time, he's just testing our patience. I'm really leaning towards a permaban. Yanksox 18:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)"

And now, my retort. I had never even heard of Yanksox until several days earlier, so his insinuation that he had "been putting up with me for a long time" is unsubstantiated. For second, his claim of "barely marginal" is "barely legitimate" at best. Five themes of geography made DYK. My editcount is 3000+ (that should give you ideas), see User:Flameviper/edits for more. For last, I have never been on 4chan, and that accusation is simply an ad hominem personal attack. "Like a newbie"? This kind of abuse, coming from a normal user, would warrant a block (or at least serious warning via WP:NPA). But from Yanksox, it's just another drop in the bucket.

And now I will give you some actual URLs to substantiate myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Flameviper and http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Flameviper&action=history

This is the history of my talk page (as User:Flameviper). Various things happened here, the most important of which was probably the reversion of my announcement that I was taking a month-long Wikivacation. This did not "coincide" with the block, it was caused by the block. I will admit that I was unwilling to admit I had been banned for a month and as thus, I announced that I was leaving. Perhaps this was obstinate and pigheaded of me to do, but the net result (me not editing for 30 days) was the same, and it certainly did not warrant a revert and a protection. After approximately two reverts, the page was locked for one month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Flameviper

Rather self-explanatory. I had conceived an idea (Misplaced Pages:Informal checkuser) of a practice that could potentially be put to bad use. Instead of seeing it for what it was (a cautionary warning), several administrators decided that it was my claim of being targeted, which it wasn't. My IP address is 69.81.50.1, and another one is 216.11.222.21. I'm not hiding anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Flameviper

Self-explanatory. This is my contributions. Note that my edit summaries are usually somewhat immature. This doesn't help my case, but keep in mind that serious edits are usually marked in the same informal manner as joking ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/HUNGY_MAN

A small-scale account that I created back in May 2006 for no particular reason (most likely to give to a friend, I can't remember). Not as a sockpuppet. I used it to make very small edits to my Flameviper userpage and got the Flameviper account indefinitely blocked by Yanksox (without a consensus at the ANI page).

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Flameviper&action=history

Revert war between myself and several sysops, particularly Gwernol (the last few edits). Through HUNGY_MAN, my alternate account, I had blanked my userpage simply for the purpose of not having an embarassing "blocked" notice on my user page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive74#User:Flameviper_needs_a_coach

WP:AN thread where I have been grossly misrepresented, abused, and I'm not able to defend myself because I'm banned.

Specifically, the e-mail representations of Flameviper. For one, Ryan's e-mail response was blackmailed from me as I was under the impression that the corrsepondence was private. Secondly, my claim in that e-mail was not that I craved the attention of people, it was actually that I craved positive attention. Of course, I didn't anticipate my words being twisted against me, since I believed this to be in confidence. And thirdly, Josh Gordon also misrepresented me. He claimed that I "threatened sockpuppetry and vandalism". I did no such thing; I merely stated that if I could not edit my talk page and e-mail produced no response, then I would be forced to use sckpuppetry to communicate. The "threat of vandalism" was a pure fabrication. However, these outrageous misinterpretations go uncorrected because, again, I cannot contact Misplaced Pages.


So there, you have it. An archive of an abused snake.

New update: Yanksox has posted an e-mail from me to him. It seems abusive, but he's really lying. He actually trolled me and made numerous ad hominem personal attacks. When I finally responded in kind, he acted like he was the victim, and then he posted it on ANI as if I had been arbitrarily abusing him. I double-dare Yanksox to post the full E-mail discussion, so that Misplaced Pages can see what he really said to me. I forwarded the original transcript to jpgordon (talk · contribs). He has a copy. Ask him; he'll tell you!
Also, please do not block this account. I'll only edit this Arbcom page, honest. I just want a chance to correct all the horrible slander against me. Thanks. Flameviper III 13:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Yanksox

My block of Flameviper was endorsed by the community. He was blocked for trolling and continues to send harassing e-mails that seem to cross into WP:LEGAL. Furthermore, this hardly seems for Arbcom because this case is being brought to the light due to another case with more gravity. The more proper place for a request like this is WP:RfC or MedCab. Yanksox 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Given the filing party's status as a community-banned user, arbitrators may wish to consider whether a case filed in this fashion should be entertained at all or summarily removed. In the past, cases filed by alternate accounts of banned users have sometimes been removed from the page and sometimes considered. Community bans are presumably appealable to ArbCom, but no one wants to encourage block/ban evasion, so the question is how the banned user should present a request for an appeal. Perhaps it could be licit to create a special account for this sole purpose, or perhaps allowing only e-mail to the mailing list would be more appropriate to begin with. Policy guidance on this question would be helpful and could be embodied in the instructions for bringing a case to avoid any future doubt. Newyorkbrad 13:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. See also nobs01, a user who (unlike Flameviper frm what I've seen) is probably of benefit to the project. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
My $0.02: allow this case per WP:SNOW, but add something to the pink box at the top stating that banned users must bring cases by e-mailing an arbitrator, or asking someone else to act on their behalf. David Mestel 18:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Technically correct but practically irrelevant. If he had e-mailed a clerk rather than using sockpuppets, we still would have listed the request for him. I'm not going to remove it now on a technicality. Thatcher131 20:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

  • Decline. There has been more than enough review of this matter. There is no reason for us to consider this request; the community has had ample opportuntiy to address the situation, both on-wiki and on the mailing list, and it has spoken. As to the clerk's request above, I believe these requests should be removed summarily and the sockpuppet blocked; the recourse to banned users is to email an arbitrator, not to create sockpuppets, and we shouldn't encourage that by letting these requests stand. Essjay (Talk) 01:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject on procedural grounds. Banned users may not edit in defiance of their ban to bring a case to the Committee. If they wish, they may contact the committee via email for assistance. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Paul August ☎ 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Mackensen (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong

Initiated by Olaf Stephanos at 23:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

A message has been left on the talk pages of all involved parties. Olaf Stephanos 00:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware, comment below. --Asdfg12345 01:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Arbitration was sought for the Falun Gong articles earlier, but ArbCom refused the case. This time we're not dealing with a content dispute. This editor has repeatedly violated fundamental Misplaced Pages policies, and now it's time to get somebody else's word on that.

Statement by Olaf Stephanos

(truncated version, about 500 words)

Samuel Luo, an anti-Falun Gong activist, has made few contributions that comply with Misplaced Pages's core principles. He has demonstrated his inability or unwillingness to constructively discuss his edits with other users; furthermore, he has never expressed any repentance for his disruptive editing behaviour. The comments left on the discussion pages, the large number of misleading edit summaries, the negligence of appeals for discussion (there have been a few attempts, but they are consistently void of cooperative mentality), and his own statements of his advocacy support our case.

It is patent that Samuel's mission has never been to create a neutral encyclopedia article but, instead, to use Misplaced Pages for promoting his agenda. He has sought to turn the Falun Gong articles into an extension of his own anti-Falun Gong website. Samuel's reckless behaviour has been the principal trigger of edit wars on these pages. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Neutral point of view (and associated principles) provides a good description of the current situation: "Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem." I've repeatedly told everyone that I don't oppose to any material that conforms to Misplaced Pages standards. We're not seeking arbitration for the Falun Gong articles per se, but before we can have a successful mediation case, patent vandalism needs to be uprooted. Samuel has been blocked five times already, so we're dealing with a noted troublemaker.

Given his strong opinions and a large personal interest in this issue, we do not think that Samuel will be leaving the project for good. However, an official intervention might be the only thing that makes him realize how he needs to mend his approach. In truth, he will be forgiven if he repents his latest series of violations, constructively adds his own edits while respecting WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:Verifiability, and promises that he will do no more lawless blanking. We want to edit these articles according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines without constantly having to ward off harassment and anarchy. It has come to this after one year of full-blown chaos; we have now compiled the evidence and ask ArbCom to evaluate it. For the sake of convenience, we'll simply expose a few egregious examples from each month, even though Samuel's edit history is studded with similar behaviour.

We suggest that the latest series of edits occurring in early-mid February is examined thoroughly. They are a good reflection of a general trend. Blanking material from human rights organizations and peer-reviewed journals is a common pattern in Samuel's edits. Usually the edit summaries he leaves behind are highly misleading: he might have claimed to "add a quote", even though most of the edit consists of blanking large sections of sourced material. He also tends to infuse his text with obvious weasel words and "novel narratives" not backed up by sources; their removal has frequently lead into revert wars. Here's just a handful of examples of Samuel's edits: , , , , , , (an administrator removes Samuel's personal website, Samuel reverts). If the ArbCom is willing to look into this case, I can provide a clear, concise and illustrative list of Samuel's noteworthy violations in reverse chronological order.

Statement by Asdfg12345

Final version, culled, per request. Now 492 words.

Agree with the essence of Olaf's note. Samuel has been a persistent and unrepentively disruptive editor since he began editing. His violations of wikipedia core policies are extensive and egregious. He provides very little useful material for discussion and often leaves misleading and/or highly hypocritical edit summaries. This, long term, obviously leaves other contributors in a helpless situation. He has been sanctioned in the past. Please be assured that this description is not exaggerated -- the evidence stands for itself. Some of the content Samuel has included, for example on the Li Hongzhi (founder of Falun Dafa) page, has often come directly from his personal website, which he has repeatedly reverted deletions of, also violating WP:LIVING: compare this to Samuel's personal website (note this is just an example, not a very good one, that the content is taken straight from his site.) There are more of these examples -- the edits tell the story well enough.

If still relevant, I want to respond to Tomananda but to do no more than clarify the situation and quote myself as the words actually appear on the Talk page:

I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC) -- I hearby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions, heart and attitude toward editing on wikipedia. I now retract this statement and apologise for any confusion or miscommunication, as it was not intentional. My statement of intent and understanding of my role on wikipedia are more fully and accurately expressed in a later post. --Asdfg12345 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I struck through my brash comment, apologised and explained myself the next day.

Some more things: this is not about retribution. If Samuel recanted his latest series of violations and started working in accordance with wikipedia's principles, stopped blanking etc., I would not have any more interest in this request. Samuel is automatically forgiven. Of course, I did not initiate this request. Regarding my edits and understanding of wikipedia, I would say there is probably a great deal of naivity in the early days, both in editing and talk page discussions. I am acutely aware of this, though I have never done anything like large scale blanking of sourced content. I have always explained myself, invited and engaged in (sometimes rather lively!) discussion, and the only stuff I have ever removed and challenged is (of course, what I understand to be) tendentious. In the end I would say I have become mostly enmeshed in abstruse content disputes, and there is a very clear and qualitative difference between that and what we are talking about here. Also, as a side note, I think there are some editors involved in this suffering from a bad case of m:MPOV.--Asdfg12345 21:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Tomananda

Asdfg has a history of blanking. It’s outrageous that he and Olaf would now initiate an action against Samuel, who is as much a victim of the Falun Gong as he is an "activist". I was happy that Asdfg stopped blanking sometime in February, but apparently that was for the purpose of preparing a "case" against Samuel.

There is a long history of blanking, deceptively identified edits, and POV warrioring by Asdfg, Omido, Dilip and others. Those violations can be documented going back to Spring, 2006. But does it really make sense for us to go down this road? Everything Samuel has done he has done in good faith, and often in response to a barrage of edits done by multiple Falun Gong practitioners working in concert.

If this case is accepted, unfairly singling out Samuel, I will document how the violations done by Falun Gong practitioners far exceed any violations Samuel may have done. The practitioners delete material they consider negative, even direct quotes from their master who demands that they not talk about his teachings at the higher levels with “ordinary people.” Yet we seem to have made some progress with the mediator and I think that should continue. --Tomananda 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Happy in General: Yes, Samuel and I share the same "machine." That fact was fully disclosed here . Rather than raising this non-issue, we should be talking about the systematic campaign of deception that you and other Falun Gong practitioners have engaged in on these Misplaced Pages pages.

Response to Asdfg: The history is all there for anyone to read; I didn’t think it was necessary to recreate all that history when I reported your declaration of POV warrioring. Here’s a more complete picture of what happened:

From the Talk Page, Falun Gong

  • Asdfg: 6 February Main Page Talk: “If you swear off introducing fallacious material, I’ll swear off blanking it.”
  • Fire Star: 6 February “The problem is, it is your opinion that the material is fallacious.”
  • Asdfg: 16:50 February 6: “I hereby solemnly declare that the previous post does not accurately express my intentions.”

Next day on the Epoch Times page

  • Asdfg: 1:49 7 February ... Asdfg blanked material which relies on direct quotes from Master Li Hongzhi:

A mini edit-war ensured, done by both “sides” of FG debate, including Tomananda. Within that context, Asdfg continued to blank the Li Hongzhi material:

  • 1:27 8 February
  • 19:16 9 February
  • 1:08 10 February

Next, on February 11th, Asdfg reverted his own edit saying "I recant. You win.”

Some conclusions:

  • Asdfg continued blanking material he considered “fallacious” after he “solemnly sweared” that his previous post did not accurately reflect his real intentions.
  • Asdfg had a mysterious change of heart on February 11th.
  • Around this time, Asdfg, working with other Falun Gong practitioners, prepared an arbitration case against Samuel.
  • Among the major obstacles to agreement between the two sides of the Falun Gong edit wars is whether Misplaced Pages should report Li’s own teachings “at the higher levels” which include the idea that his disciples, as a condition for their salvation during this period of Fa-rectification, must work to destroy the CCP. --Tomananda 09:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by HappyInGeneral

Both Samuel and Tormananda share the same machine, IP, so how much of their activities are Sock puppetry is unknown. Both of them have a strong agenda and both of them ignore parts of a logical reasoning getting back to the same old propaganda style accusation of Falun Gong. See here Talk:The_Epoch_Times#Li_says_The_Dafa_is_judging_all_beings, and here Talk:The_Epoch_Times#.22advertises_itself_as_a_qigong_practice.22; these being just the latest examples which I encountered without doing any research on this. I think that the case presented by Olaf is on good grounds, because since we are on Misplaced Pages we should respect some of the rules, especially when dealing with a lengthy content debate. Having a list by with all Misplaced Pages Policy violations done on the Falun Gong related pages is fine by me, and actually I would really like to see it. --HappyInGeneral 13:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jsw663

Oppose ArbCom action not because of relevance, but because not all dispute resolution steps have been tried sufficiently. I am aware that on exceptional grounds some users may be banned directly despite this, but this case is not that simple.

Mediation has nearly been impossible for Falun Gong-related pages. There have been content edit wars for years now. This case against Samuel by one camp is part of a wider picture - that two main camps (pro- and anti-FG) have been engaged in edit wars for years, and have sought to ban each other from Misplaced Pages in order to impose a POV edit of what is going on. There is a third camp that has sadly not had too much effect, which is trying to restore order and to focus editors on writing NPOV articles. This includes mediators, of which Armedblowfish is now the one, who is trying to reach compromise. Like the mediator Armedblowfish, I share the opinion that this ArbCom case does not help in reaching a final version.

Accepting this ArbCom case could also mean a flood of cases against pro-FG users. This is because they also have an agenda - to see that no critical content (or excessively little critical content) of anything to do with Falun Gong is on Misplaced Pages pages, including a disproportionate number of the anti-FG camp be banned so that their pro-FG POV can be enforced. Violations of Misplaced Pages policies have been tolerated in spite of their actions PRECISELY BECAUSE we want a finalized version of the Falun Gong-related page article. This is why greater tolerance has been urged.

It has already been established that Samuel Luo and Tomananda are different people in previous cases. Thus the sockpuppetry allegation by Happy In General above holds little water, unless the ArbCom is willing to overturn an administrator/sysop decision it made before.

So to put it in perspective, also look at pro-Falun Gong users like Omido whose actions have been infinitely worse than Samuel's edits. Andres18, another pro-FG editor, has condemned me for bringing a mediation (not arbitration) case against Omido who engaged in mass section blanking and absolutely no discussion, including announcing his intention of ensuring only a POV version was on Misplaced Pages. This shows his bias by the pro-FG camp in affecting the equality of application of Wiki policies too, saying we should clampdown on Samuel's actions but not Andres18's or Omido's. This is why I oppose on the grounds that not all dispute resolution steps have been taken to a sufficient degree as laid out by policies for bringing cases to the ArbCom. Launching an ArbCom case merely to seek someone else's view (see Olaf's reason in the Confirmation that Other forms of Dispute Resolution have been Tried) is clearly not valid. A third-party view can be sought on that, and does not need to waste the ArbCom's time for something so petty. Jsw663 15:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PS As a side note, and in partial response to Asdfg, the MPOV tag can also apply to all the pro-FG editors who insist their view is neutral now since they suddenly became the "masters" of Misplaced Pages policy enforcement. It is important to re-establish when rules should be adhered to, and when they are merely being abused by parties to enforce their POV edit. Jsw663 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mcconn

I've noticed a process for most regular editors. When they first start editing they aren't aware of the rules or principles of wikipedia and naturally make edits in violation of them, but as time goes on they learn more about these rules and begin to edit more in compliance with them. I've been working on the Falun Gong pages since before Samuel started editing, so I've been around to witness his whole development as an editor. There is a big difference between Samuel and the other editors who have been involved in editing these pages for some time, which is that others have developed in this regard while Samuel hasn't at all. With regard to his talk page behavior, edit summaries, and general attitude, the others in support of this case have already said it well. Overall, I think that an editor like Samuel needs a wake-up call like this to get him on the right track. Moreover, I think that this "wake-up call" would do well to encourage others involved with these pages to be more mindful of their own behavior. With regards to what Jsw and Tomanada have said about others being equally suited for a case like this, I highly disagree. There are no other editors currently involved as regularly as Sam who have a track record anywhere near as bad as his. Mcconn 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Samuel Luo

To keep this short I am not going to respond to Olaf’s statement point by point but just state my objection to this action.

I began editing the Falun Gong page on March 23, 2006. My first edit was on the Falun Gong talk page proposing to add sourced material. I respect Wiki editing principles and the opinion of fellow editors. However, quickly, I found that there was, and still is, a group of Falun-Gong-practitioner-editors (here after, FGers) on Misplaced Pages trying to prevent anyone from exposing the group’s concealed core teachings and critical comments from western critics by blanking. On April 2, 2006, after only a week, I had to post a message objecting to FGers blanking on the talk page.

Unfortunately, FGers have continued to blank sourced material without any consequences. It was under that influence that I too became more aggressive. In the past year, I was blocked a few times, sometimes fairly and sometimes unfairly. As a result I have come to respect Wiki editing rules. In my last edit conflict with FGers I provided a list explaining my edits on the talk page. I have also tried to initiate a dialogue with FGers to work out our dispute. Despite my repeated attempts, I was ignored and am now met with this complaint.

There has been a series of edit-wars on Falun Gong pages, for months we have been begging for a formal mediation. This action against me comes at a time that Armedblowfish is making progress in resolving our disputes. It seems to me that this action is intentionally taken to derail the work of the mediator. Sure enough, as a result of the filing of this complaint Armedblowfish has announced officially putting the mediation on hold.

A request for Arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution, because the filing of this complaint interrupts the mediation work in progress. I do not believe it should be accepted. I urge you not to accept this case not because I am guilty of anything, but rather because this complaint does not address the fundamental problem of the dispute on Falun Gong pages.

If this case is accepted I will provide a argument to defend myself and if the committee rules that I am not suitable for editing Misplaced Pages, I have no problem with leaving. As Misplaced Pages editors, we are all volunteers. While FGers are working hard on these Falun Gong pages because their master has promised them eternal salvation, I am here with a desire to stop this group of editors from turning these Misplaced Pages pages into propaganda for their cult. --Samuel Luo 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

State by Yueyuen

This is absurd. Falun Gong editors have routinely blanked sourced material. They have violated many more Wiki rules many times over than Samuel has ever did. Samuel's parents are both falun gong practitioners and because of that he has done serious researches on this group. Samuel has contributed a lot to making these articles educational for the public. For his contribution he is hated by falun gong editors and they have singled him out.

falun gong people have left hateful messages on samuel's talk page. The following was post just two weeks ago: "Fuck you Samuel Luo, may yuo rot in hell motherfucker." I don't believe accepting this case would do anything to resolve the problem on FLG articles. --Yueyuen 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Penwhale

One has to realize that FLG is itself a controversial topic. Unfortunately, this does not help the fact that we have to maintain neutrality (which is one of the pillar of Misplaced Pages). Based on the action-reaction, I propose a rename of the case to Falun Gong which is more appropriate, as I believe we need to look at actions from both sides, based on personal attacks towards Samuel. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Notices being placed on talkpages for the offending users to shorten their statements by tomorrow or a Clerk will do so. Newyorkbrad 01:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Essjay (Talk) 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

GordonWatts

Initiated by GordonWatts at 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

I, GordonWatts 02:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC), hereby confirm that, upon a successful filing, I shall notified the users listed by mention on their talk page -except that, in the case of the un-named participants, I shall make a note on the related talk page, that is, here: Misplaced Pages:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts

Guy
Calton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatcher131 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
Fredrick day
Leebo
Jeffrey Gustafson
Tom harrison
Corvus cornix
Friday
Proto
King Bee
Musical Linguist
Orangemonster2k1 (aka "SVRTVDude )
Patsw
Giovanni33
Sarah Ewart
ElinorD
TenOfAllTrades
Mangojuice
Durova
Hit bull, win steak
Veesicle
Snoutwood (aka "Kyle Barbour")
Marskell
ChazBeckett
MartinGugino
Rspeer
MastCell
Badlydrawnjeff
WikiLeon
ObiterDicta
155.91.28.232 - - yes, even HE (or she) was a participant! (And, by my analysis, he/she is the last particpant to be listed in this RfArbCom)
GordonWatts --oop. One more: I "notified" myself, and the reason I list myself is to demonstrate that there were 33 participants (including myself), but no more than 14 supported any one sanction, so the claim that some sort of WP:CONSENSUS existed is a fallacy.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • A summary of other steps tried thus far can be found at .

Text of community sanction

This is, as requested, the text of the community sanction, results of my interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard#Community ban request on User:GordonWatts, as posted to User talk:GordonWatts:

Per Misplaced Pages:Community noticeboard#Community ban request on User:GordonWatts:

  • You may not edit articles related to Terri Schiavo
  • You may not link or suggest links to your own sites
  • Your participation in Schiavo articles is restricted to making a very small number of brief comments to Talk pages, of the order of one per day. Note that this does not mean one thread, edited numerous times, it means one edit.

Failure to abide by these restrictions will lead either to an outright ban, or to ArbCom (who will almost certainly apply precisely the same restrictions, but with more force).

This steers, I think, the right line between those who advocate an outright ban and those who are prepared to work with Gordon, just not at the expense of wading through kilobytes of argumentation every day. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:GordonWatts

Some claim I'm a single-issue editor. False: I'm a long-time editor with over 4,500 edits on 576 main pages, 1278 talk pages. Even were this true, there's nothing wrong with "single-issue" specialists: For example, most of a doctor's activities are (gasp) in the medical field.

Also, some claim I'm disruptive! However, in all my thousands of edits, I've been disciplined only twice:

  • 02:28, 19 September 2005 Carnildo blocked "GordonWatts" with an expiry time of 1 second (Guy keeps pointing to his clean block log as a reason why he should be made an admin)
  • 15:16, 24 September 2005 Taxman blocked "GordonWatts" with an expiry time of 12 hours (violation of agreement at Talk:Terri Schiavo)
  • Block Log
  • See also.
    • The 1st block is ridiculous (and I think Carnildo was later desysopped).
    • In the 2nd case, I had a misunderstanding and thought the "3-edit per day" limit (several of us had agreed to) had expired. (Sometimes simpler making several small edits than one big one.)


Some at Misplaced Pages:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts accused me of promoting my own links (not my personal site, but rather my newspaper). Most of my edits have nothing to do with my newspapers!! One editor even points out here the links in question weren’t even my own: "The dispute seems to have started with this uncivil edit summary from Calton. The material Calton was removing was in the article when I joined Misplaced Pages in April 2005 (before Gordon). The actual link (to a site that Calton objected to, but not Gordon's personal website) was added by Zenger, not by Gordon, although Gordon did revert the person who reverted Zenger."

Even the length of my posts (sometimes long) weren't problematic.

My only "crime" was the content of my posts: "Being annoying and writing long messages on talk pages is his sole crime. He hasn't edit warred (much) over the links, just complained volubly on the talk page about their removal."

In short, I neither vandalize nor edit war & I respect concensus, whether it goes in my favor or not; Most of my mainspace article edits are accepted, not reverted.

OK, enough about my moderately clean record in my many thousands of edits!

The bottom line is the 4 restrictions placed upon me here are totally inappropriate and made by editors who really know nothing about me except that I disagreed with their opinion on things.

MANY editors on both sides of the issue wish ArbCom to take this case (as shown by their statements below), so it seems a valid matter.

If my only "crime" is that of expressing a minority opinion -not of inappropriate edits, edit warring, vandalism, threats, etc., then ANY sanction is inappropriate! You may see My Original Statement for documentation these sanctions violate policy.

Rebuttal by User:GordonWatts to selected editors

Per the request of clerk, Thatcher131, here, which states: "Threaded discussion removed. If you must respond, add a rebuttal statement to your own section," I shall do so. (Also, I note that -as of my reply below, JzG's section was 757 words, so if this causes me to exceed the 500-word ceiling, please forgive and overlook.)

Thatcher however also requested that "If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination."

REQUEST GRANTED.

I responded to selected editors:

Rebuttal to the votes of the Arbitrators
  • This quote from my talk-page, with emphasis added for clarity:--GordonWatts 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Unfortunately your statement may be 500 words more or less, but your rebuttals add another 2000 words to the total. Requests for arbitration is not meant to be a discussion or a debate. I think a rebuttal to the votes of the arbitrators is a reasonable addition, but can you do something about the rest? If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination. Thatcher131 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"


"Decline; I see no substantial reason to alter the community ban here. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)"
I see many "reasons" -in this lengthy page -but I will not re-argue the case. You must find the reasons herein.--GordonWatts 11:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


"Decline. The system appears to be working. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)"
How can the system "be working" if admins are allowed to violate WP:Consensus?--GordonWatts 11:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


UPDATE: You had voted on this before we knew that NO consensus of ANY type existed

  • These votes came in before I had realised that the "consensus" was not even a majority. Even giving the full benefit of the doubt to my critics, less than half of the editors on that page proposed any type of mainspace editing restriction or worse. Even a "super majority" is not necessarily "consensus," and so much less a "slim majority," so if someone tells me that a "minority" of the given editors is somehow "consensus," then I will reply that they support User:JzG, who acted in violation of WP:Consensus.
  • I think that maybe User:JzG made an honest mistake: Almost half of the participants did endorse a penalty restricting editing articles or harsher - but that does not mitigate several facts:
    • A lot of angst and harsh words have been exchanged by all parties; This is not necessary.
    • Many people are now asking ArbCom to look into this matter -see the statements that are now coming in.
    • Let's not forget that I still maintain my innocence! However, even if I bite the dust and disappear, how many more editors will be mistreated and penalized when they have neither violated rules nor gotten a consensus against them? -not even a majority?


"Decline; and support community sanctions. FloNight 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)"
Why? What diffs exist that indicate I violated any sort of rule? The only argument that I would accept from you regarding declination is that you are too busy "in real life." Any other justification would not sway me at this time.--GordonWatts 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


"Decline and endorse both the specific community sanctions, and the right of the community to do so. Essjay (Talk) 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"
The sanctions do not have the right to violate WP:Consensus -assuming one existed. And, even if consensus exists (it does not), consensus should not override policy. If you endorse "specific community sanctions," then please show me diffs in support of your contention that these sanctions are correct (in their claim that my mainspace edits have been inappropriate). Await your reply.--GordonWatts 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


"Decline; Essjay speaks my mind. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"
Why would you rely on another person to think for you? Did you see any evidence that I had earned the sanctions (which, btw, were not supported by consensus)? Did you even read the statements in support of many of my claims? If not, then you are not psychic. If so, then you are guilty of supporting sanctions (a) against a user who is innocent until proven guilty by the diffs -and (b) you are guilty of sanctioning a rogue admin who acted without consensus!!--GordonWatts 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


-No Consensus existed to support Guy's admin action-

"If your main concern is that there was insufficient agreeement to constitute consensus, a link to the discussion and a brief recap should be sufficient; I would normally expect the arbitrators to follow significant links and verify them as part of their determination. Thatcher131 13:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)"

Alright, Thatcher. I have done as you suggested. Let's see if they follow the links as you suggest!--GordonWatts 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You can see here that there were thirty-three (33) participants, and no more than fourteen (14) signed onto any one sanction -certainly not ALL FOUR sanctions "proclaimed" by User:JzG (Guy), the admin who made the "proclamation." To have even a "slim" consensus, you would need at least 17 supporters of any one line of action, and this was lacking -even if you go fishing into the text of the article and look for people who opined and commented but did not vote. Perhaps (and I say "perhaps") the only consensus that existed may have been about talk page length -and that is a tenuous "maybe."

Silence from ArbCom is explicit (not implicit) endorsement of this admin, JzG, who violated WP:Consensus by acting to support a minority opinion, pretending to be fair -because he did not support a full and complete ban. A minority opinion is not consensus -no matter how some try to spin it, and this is precisely a reason why many consider Misplaced Pages an unreliable source: People here can't even follow their own rules! What intellectual dishonesty, and I'm sorry if you're offended, but I must call a spade a spade.--GordonWatts 05:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

-These editors support my claims of innocence-

Besides not having any actual consensus (hey, Guy, does WP:Consensus policy matter anymore?), I am innocent until proven guilty, and but since I am somehow "tainted," here is more proof of my innocence, but if you still think I've made irresponsible edits, show me the diffs! Show me proof.

    • Here are selected quotes from this page which support my claims that my edits have not been disruptive -and/./or implicate other editors:
  • "Nothing I seen of Gordon's edits were disruptive...I would like to see ArbCom reverse the WP:CN ruling and allow Gordon to post one post per day with a 500 word maximum (that should make everyone happy) on any Schiavo-related page or talk page. But, I would also like to see Gordon expand out from Schiavo-related pages and work on other sections of Misplaced Pages as I think he would do well outside of just Schiavo-related pages." SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC) This editor struck out those comments below, suggesting that he no longer stood by those words - Gordon should check before quoting him in such a manner. --Fredrick day 09:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct, Fredrick, he did strikeout, but he told me in a private email that "If you wish to quote me I am completely cool with that." His reasons for withdrawing were personal -not because he changed his mind, so I am removing the strikeout markers, but I am allowing (granting permission for) your comment to remain in my section.--GordonWatts 11:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


  • "...it seems to me that this may need to be linked better to an ongoing violation of some Misplaced Pages policies, because someone abiding by the letter and spirit of the rules should not be banned under the "community patience clause" alone...However, those users who were involved in the original conflict have had their behavior questioned by Gordon, and that questioning has largely been ignored (so as to keep the conversation on-topic). However, a consideration of the environment in which Gordon's behavior occurred may be beneficial, and was somewhat missing in the ban discussion." Mangojuicetalk 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Calton (talk · contribs) can be rude and abraisive and often looks for ways to force his beliefs - sometimes he's correct, sometimes he's not. If ArbCom does decide to take this case on, the behavior of all parties, not just the exhaustion of patience with Gordon, should be taken into consideration." --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Gordon was and continues to be, in my opinion, well-meaning and completely genuine in his desire to improve the Terri Schiavo article. Gordon, in 2005, seemed to me to have every intention of working with other editors to resolve the differences of opinion that made the article so unstable." A Train take the 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "I am on wikibreak but am forcing myself to write a statement…have known Gordon since he joined Misplaced Pages nearly two years ago…However, I found the way that he was treated by some much worse than the way he behaved…Gordon, amazingly, never seemed to bear grudges, and even tried to get Duckecho back after he left, and felt that the ArbCom had been unfair to ban FuelWagon for his campaign of abuse…Gordon's article editing is not disruptive. The insertion of his links counts for a very minor proportion of his contributions to mainspace. He has corrected numerous spelling mistakes, sometimes improved the wording, and worked on format." Musical Linguist 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "The action I favor is that this debate be removed from the Terri Schiavo talk page, and the issues enumerated. The Schiavo article itself has been ok."-- Martin | talk • contribs 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-These editors desire ArbCom intervention-

Open letter to Arbitors: Do you not see the many posts herein which ask you for intervention?

    • Here are selected quotes from this page which desire ArbCom intervention:

These editors are asking for ArbCom intervention in varying degrees:--GordonWatts 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • “I would like to see ArbCom reverse the WP:CN ruling…” SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)This editor struck those comments from the record as can been seen below - therefore Gordon needs to clarfy with him if he still supports such remarks before quoting him. --Fredrick day 09:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct, Fredrick, he did strikeout, but he told me in a private email that "If you wish to quote me I am completely cool with that." His reasons for withdrawing were personal -not because he changed his mind, so I am removing the strikeout markers, but I am allowing (granting permission for) your comment to remain in my section.--GordonWatts 11:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


  • “ArbCom is the appropriate place for Gordon to appeal the restrictions placed on him as a result of that…“ ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • “The call for endorsing of solutions seemed relatively rigid, and didn't seem to provide an easy framework for those who might have opposed taking action to speak. I think ArbCom should either take up the case, or by not doing so, be willing to implicitly endorse the community decision.” Mangojuicetalk 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • “Please either take this case, and implement a temporary injunction banning Watts form disrupting those articles and talk pages, or speedily endorse the community sanction, which has considerable involvement from a decent number of editors and admins in good standing.” Guy (Help!) 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • “I think the wider incivility and hostility on both sides (Gordon's, and the editor's who have disputed his edits) could well be looked at further. See the posts by Musical Linguist and Sarah Ewart on the Community Noticeboard discussion for evidence of this.” Proto ► 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • “Calton (talk · contribs) can be rude and abraisive and often looks for ways to force his beliefs - sometimes he's correct, sometimes he's not. If ArbCom does decide to take this case on, the behavior of all parties, not just the exhaustion of patience with Gordon, should be taken into consideration.” --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • “I'd encourage the Arbitrators to either explicitly affirm the community consensus (as expressed by Guy), or take the case - anything else will just lead to more wikilaywering.” MastCell 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • “As a procedural matter I find the idea of community topic banning intriguing. If I understand correctly, a decision by the Committee not to open this case would have the effect of confirming the community's ability to topic ban. If that interpretation is correct then perhaps this request should be archived (if the current trend continues among the arbitrators)…The one reason I see to actually open this case would be to establish a ruling and a formal precedent on community topic banning, which is significant in the larger picture of community action.” DurovaCharge! 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • “I think it’s unlikely that the Committee will accept the case. I would urge acceptance for two reasons…” Musical Linguist 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "May I suggest that as many ArbCom members as possible weigh in? Or else you WILL get another round of arguments from Gordon regarding what makes up consensus." --Calton | Talk 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Reply to The Uninvited Co: RE "out of order" comment
  • I am rebutting the votes by arguments: I have a right to defense: Since you imply a "word-length" concern, I will assure you that I have nothing more to post -at all -unless it is to reply to a lie or false accusation. Since I am trying to follow orders -and stay within a reasonable word length (note: both JzG and Musical Linguist have gone well over 500-words, so I should be able to make a limited reply), then I posit that your comment is out of order, but if there is a word-length on rebuttals, maybe I am wrong; Please go find me the rule.
EMERGENCY reply to Thatcher
  • "That's partly my fault. I pointed out to him that his "statement" was 500 words but his various rebuttals added..." Thatcher131 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply: I acted in good conscience, trying to keep my word count down -and note that some others have very much exceeded 500 words. Even though this is not all my fault, I don't want to bring bad light or criticism upon you, and to that end, I will repeat my statement: Unless some emergency arises (or some blatant falsehood), I have no further sustentative word-count to add.
    • This remedy I propose (that is, that I add no new petitions or arguments) should make everyone on both sides happy -and reassure you and your colleagues that I am not operating in bad faith. To do so would no only be wrong, but it might work against me. (I would not even have added anything here, but I saw this as an emergency in regards to your reputation taking an unecessary hit, and I feel the duty to do what I can -that is, assure you I have no further need to add anything to this already long ArbCom petition.)--GordonWatts 07:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Clerk note: Rather than debate further, please shorten your overall presentation to a total of 500 words. See discussion in the "Clerk note" section below and my post on your talkpage. Newyorkbrad 17:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by SVRTVDude

I know the Community Ban discussion was heated and my personal opinion was started by an editor just out to silence someone who had a different opinion then his own. User:Calton made the problem worse by going "back and forth" with Gordon and using incivil language and a rude tone in his posts. This could have been prevented if everyone backed off, took a deep breath, returned and discussed things politely. But I digress....

Nothing I seen of Gordon's edits were disruptive...long, yes, but not disruptive, and I would have liked to have seen Gordon be allowed one post per day on Schiavo-related page and talk pages, but alas that did not happen.

User:Calton took a straw poll of users about the Geocities/AOL links. I think there was a 10-0 against the links. But it was not about the information in those links, just that they were run by him. I have had a similar problem with my media news site. I used it as a reference, but since I did the research, it was not allowed. To my knowledge, no GeoCities/AOL links are allowed. None of the information of his links is false, just a personal website can not be linked by the owner of that site.

I would like to see ArbCom reverse the WP:CN ruling and allow Gordon to post one post per day with a 500 word maximum (that should make everyone happy) on any Schiavo-related page or talk page. But, I would also like to see Gordon expand out from Schiavo-related pages and work on other sections of Misplaced Pages as I think he would do well outside of just Schiavo-related pages.

Just one editors opinion.....SVRTVDude 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I, myself, am striking my comments from the record. - SVRTVDude 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by ObiterDicta (talk · contribs)

As a participant in the Community Noticeboard discussion mentioned by Gordon above, I suppose I am an involved party. ArbCom is the appropriate place for Gordon to appeal the restrictions placed on him as a result of that discussion and I believe that an appeal would be more-or-less implied by Gordon's call for "discipline" for JzG, Calton and the rest of us. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"ArbCom is the appropriate place for Gordon to appeal the restrictions placed on him" Even though we disagreed on many issues, counselor, I agree and concur.--GordonWatts 06:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Mangojuice (talk • contribs)

As a participant in the thread Gordon referred to, I have this to offer. With a strong enough consensus, the users may be banned per WP:BAN, and the extent of agreement to the sort of editing restrictions the discussion ended up with certainly qualifies as strong consensus: there is a little dissent but not a lot. However, per WP:BAN such bans may be appealed to ArbCom, which I think is what this request is all about. A few general comments on the discussion:

  1. Although I think Jzg did a perfectly reasonable job summing up the results of the discussion, it may have been better for someone else to do it, as Jzg endorsed a particular outcome prior to "closing". (I was tempted to sum up similarly but did not, for this reason.)
  2. The call for endorsing of solutions seemed relatively rigid, and didn't seem to provide an easy framework for those who might have opposed taking action to speak. The softest options were probation or referring to ArbCom.
  3. The complaint against Gordon boils down to that certain elements of the community are just really sick of Gordon. "Exhausing the community's patience" fits very well.. but it seems to me that this may need to be linked better to an ongoing violation of some Misplaced Pages policies, because someone abiding by the letter and spirit of the rules should not be banned under the "community patience clause" alone. Gordon may be guilty of an old conflict-of-interest violation, and arguably he ignores WP:CON by continuing discussions after they have been clearly settled.
  4. The complaint about the other users commenting on the ban request is complete hogwash and should be ignored. For the most part, those users were not involved in the conflict and were offering outside opinions. However, those users who were involved in the original conflict have had their behavior questioned by Gordon, and that questioning has largely been ignored (so as to keep the conversation on-topic). However, a consideration of the environment in which Gordon's behavior occurred may be beneficial, and was somewhat missing in the ban discussion.
  5. Although this hasn't been to an RfC yet, the ban discussion was certainly as extensive as most RfCs (and perhaps should have been one in the first place). Nonetheless, it would be needlessly disruptive to have the whole discussion over again: I think ArbCom should either take up the case, or by not doing so, be willing to implicitly endorse the community decision. Mangojuice 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

User:GordonWatts is Gordon Watts, an individual who was active in campaigning over the Terri Schiavo case. His editing of articles related to Terri Schiavo is tendentious and disruptive, to say nothing of obsessive in pushing his highly individual point of view. He is also relentless in pressing for links to his websites, although even he agrees these are not reliable sources.

From the community discussion, here is his edit record:

Total edits: 4210: Avg edits per article: 12.38

  • Mainspace edits: 575 (13.7% of all edits)
  • Total Terri Schiavo related edits: 484 (84.2% of category)
  • Talk Page edits: 1266 (30.1% of all edits)
  • Total Terri Schiavo-related Talk page edits: 1145 (90.4% of category)
  • Misplaced Pages space: 562 (13.3% of all edits)
  • Total Terri Schiavo-FAC page edits: 282 (50.2% of category)
  • Total Adminship request edits: 107 (19.0% of category)
  • User talk page edits: 1412 (33.5% of all edits)
  • User page edits: 134 (3.2% of all edits)
  • Everything else (other articles, Category, Template, Image, etc): 472 (11.2% of all edits)

Minor point: I was not really an involved party, when I started the motion to close I was acting as an admin trying to wrestle the more assertive calls for a permanent ban down to something a bit more appropriate tot he problem in hand, and I closed it in response to a request at the admin noticeboard to stop the ongoing argumentation (any debate with GordonWatts involved appears to spiral out of control very rapidly).

It was the opinion of the community that his editing of Terri Schiavo articles was highly disruptive and should be curtailed or stopped entirely. Numerous editors have spent a lot of time trying to resolve this, but the problem is not resolved because the resolution requires GordonWatts to accept that the consensus is against him and stop agitating for his POV and links to his websites, and he is not willing to do that. No amount of patient explanation persuades him to drop it, getting his POV and especially his links into those articles is the dominant theme of his involvement with the project and a consistent source of friction and wasted time. GordonWatts is responsible for almost all debate on these articles in recent times, and in no case that I can see has he persuaded others of the merits of his case.

Sometimes when a large number of people say you are wrong, it is because you are wrong - GordonWatts is unwilling or unable to accept this simple truth. The fact that GordonWatts has couched this request in terms requesting that everybody else is disciplined shows this as clearly as anyone could want - yet another case where he is told "no", and chooses to escalate or forum-shop instead of accepting it. See also the top of Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive3 - from Gordon in bold red, "The page is nominated based in its own merit, not that of troublemaker-editors. Please close the troublemakers down. We will not let them win on my watch.--GordonWatts 21:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)" The ability to believe that the problem is everybody else, not him, is clearly a hallmark of Watts' involvement, and it has been going on for far too long.

Is the problem Gordon, or everybody who interacts with Gordon? You decide. Please either take this case, and implement a temporary injunction banning Watts form disrupting those articles and talk pages, or speedily endorse the community sanction, which has considerable involvement from a decent number of editors and admins in good standing. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Minor point of clarification: the ruling as I interpreted it was exactly as SVRTVDude requests, namely that GordonWatts could make a few (around one) post per day to the talk pages. The disruption is caused primarily by the sheer volume of his posts, aggravated by the hopelessly skewed perspective offered by his posts and the links he promotes. SVRTVDude has been in dispute with Calton, apparently recently resolved, so his comments on Calton's behaviour may be coloured by that. Calton was far from the only editor involved in telling GordonWatts to back down. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Fredrick day

I first because aware of User:GordonWatts when he appeared on AN/I appealing for help over his links - it was clear from the outset that those links did not match WP:RS and his actions were not in line with WP:COI. Over the period of 12 days of interaction it has become clear to me that Gordon is either unable or unwilling to work within the wikipedia framework. People here have talked about the policy based reasons that he should be restricted/should not be restricted but being a good wikipedian requires more than following policy to the letter, it requires a level of self-awareness and an ability to work with others. Gordon has two problems - first it is clear that he however he spins it, he is still trying to get his links inserted, sure he spins it as a wider concern but the endgame is clear - how do I get my non-notable self-produced links included (Gordon may make reference to running a newspaper - it's actually just a couple of freehosted webpages)? The second problem ties into the spirit of wikipedia, Gordon clearly feels that by a combination of wikilawyering and repeating himself over and over he can talk people around to his side of events - his failed RFA provided a useful snapshot of how Gordon interacted with the community in the past and from my interactions with him, nothing has changed since that time period. Now why is this a problem? It's not that it is an explicit policy breach but rather that Gordon Watt acts as a blackhole sucking all of the associated talkpages into endless debates about his links and his POV. It's that which is disruptive - even after 12 days of interaction, I consider GW a menace (not because of malice) to wikipedia process on those pages - I supported limiting his posts to one a day and I still do. --Fredrick day 10:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

process concern: I have a process concern - Gordon is asking Arbcom to accept this arbitration with an unnamed number of editors being covered by "other editors" and states that hereby confirm that, upon a successful filing, I shall notified the users listed by mention on their talk page -except that, in the case of the un-named participants, I shall make a note on the related talk page, that is, here: Misplaced Pages:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts surely a) those unnamed editors should be a) named and b) informed of this process before it continues. --Fredrick day 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. --jpgordon 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

process concern 2: I have a further process concern - this ARBCOM started as Gordon Watts requesting actions against a number of other editors (some named, some unnamed) - it was never started as anything else, this original remedy has now vanished from the page - removed by Gordon's hand. Gordon has now editted and revised his original statement so much so much it now seems to have morphed into something else. Many of us have replied on the basis of the original statement - this is not an ARBCOM case, it is a request for an ARBCOM case - it is wrong to expect multiple editors to keep track of every edit change he is making and ensure that their statements reflect the current version not the version they originally saw. --Fredrick day 15:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:ChazBeckett

I concur with everything presented by JzG, and would like to add a few comments of my own. I've had limited interaction with Gordon, but I've seen first-hand how incredibly frustrating it is to have discussions with him. Gordon doesn't easily fit into any of the typical categories of problem editors. He's not a troll, yet his actions cause considerable disruption. He's not a trouble-maker, yet problems seem to follow him wherever he edits. He's not a spammer, yet he's consistently adding links to his own sites. Basically, Gordon can only be classified as someone who just doesn't get it. The ultimate problem, as JzG points out, is that Gordon strongly believes that it's everyone else that's wrong and the solution is to explain at absurdly great length what's actually correct. His discussion style is to use a huge amount of text for Wikilawyering, making accusations against other editors and repeating arguments ad nauseum. Even some of his edit summaries have these problems . In summary, I believe that editing restriction on Gordon Watts are absolutely necessary because he is either unwilling or unable to edit in a non-disruptive manner. I don't believe that this disruption is intentional, but the effect is still very damaging to the project. I urge the ArbCom to either endorse the remedies discussed by the community or to take the case and investigate Gordon's behavior more extensively. ChazBeckett 14:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've noticed that Gordon has been posting to numerous pages that there wasn't consensus to impose any remedy because (according to him) only 14 of 33 participants supported any one sanction. This is a rather creative way of interpreting the discussion, but it's also quite misleading. Gordon seems to be counting every single editor who commented at any point in the entire thread (which spanned multiple sections). In the "motion to close" section, there were 21 editors who expressed their opinions on various sanctions (editors could support as many as they wished). Of these 21 editors, 18 of them (over 85%) supported at least limiting Gordon to one post per day on the Terri Schiavo-related talk pages. This includes 14 editors (66%) who supported a total ban from Schiavo-related article and talk pages, and 7 who supported a community ban from Misplaced Pages. Three editors (Badlydrawnjeff, WikiLeon and an anon) supported only lesser measures such as probation or referal to ArbCom. ChazBeckett 10:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Calton

I would agree with JzG, especially in urging ArbCom to speedily endorse the CNB summary, and to only take the case if they believe a radically different conclusion -- better or worse -- is likely: no point in doing the whole thing all over again.

Also, an embarrassing correction: the final statistic in the list cited by JzG -- which I compiled -- is incorrect. The final total for "Everything else" is actually 646 edits, or 15.3% of all edits. We regret the error. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Note also that just before JzG closed the CNB thread, GordonWatts' response was to accuse those who disagree with him of "lying" and, when called on this, to continue to argue -- at length -- why this is okay , . -- Calton (talk • contribs) 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Addendum 2: From above "The disruption is caused primarily by the sheer volume of his posts" False: Even your supporters do not accept this. - GordonWatts:

Sigh. Some quotes pulled from the discussion, diffs available if this escalates:

  • "What we need is cloture: some way to throttle Gordon's back-and-forth." - TenOfAllTrades
  • "What is happening below here indicates to me, at least, that we're going to need some sort of, as Ten says, throttle." - Sara Ewart
  • "Gordon, it's this kind of stuff that everyone is talking about. You just dropped a whole page of text that reiterates everything you've been saying already, and is so longwinded that no one can properly respond to every point you bring up." - Leebo
  • "I deliberately stopped editing Terri Schiavo almost a year ago because of the drain on time; while frequently befuddled by his massive talk posts..." - Marskell
  • "...what I view as the real problem here is that Gordon is trying to Wikilawyer to continuing a dead discussion, far beyond the community's patience." - Mangojuice
  • (Under "Limit to one post per day on Schiavo-related talk pages", canceled vote): "Never mind. I can imagine Gordon leveraging his daily epic incoherent rant on Terry Schiavo, being sure to take up as many words as everyone else in the discussion combined. This would not be good for Misplaced Pages."- Rspeer

--Calton | Talk 06:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to Marskell: The beginning end was elided for the simple and obvious reason that it was irrelevant to the sole purpose of the quote, providing a reality check on Gordon's claim that his loghorrea was not recognized as problem by others. --Calton | Talk 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the point remains, whatever slack you're granting Gordon: "his massive talk posts". --Calton | Talk 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 3: May I suggest that as many ArbCom members as possible weigh in endorse the CNB restrictions? Or else you WILL get another round of arguments from Gordon regarding what makes up consensus. --Calton | Talk 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My statement is in no way, shape, or form, an endorsement of Gordon's demand for a no-doubt-vexatious ArbCom case, no matter how he spins it. --Calton | Talk 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Addendum 4: This is telling: Gordon's response, when told his "rebuttal" is about 2,000 words past the limit, is to delete 9,179 bytes of it -- and immediately add 13,526 17,800+ bytes of NEW material. Contrary to what Musical Linguist -- in her tortuously argued statement -- thinks, disruption doesn't require overt hostility: with Gordon, it's more like being nibbled to death by ducks. --Calton | Talk 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Marskell

Calton quotes me above: "I deliberately stopped editing Terri Schiavo almost a year ago because of the drain on time; while frequently befuddled by his massive talk posts..." but elides the rest of my sentence "...I never felt Gordon acted with malice or the intent to disrupt." I imagine this will be declined (and support declining it), so I won't waste breath—I just don't want to be misrepresented. That Gordon's posts consume editors' time better spent elsewhere is indisputable, and the Schiavo-related CNB should remain for that reason. But there is a well-meaning editor in Gordon, and I hope the disparagement he's received recently can be got past and he can work quietly on topics less controversial than TS. Marskell 09:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Calton: The end, not the beginning, was elided. The sentence was deliberately contrastive and by dropping what you did you completely altered the point I was making. Read by itself, your selection indicates I left TS because of Gordon. This is only partly true (the minority part). Replying to Gordon is pleasant editing compared to some of the other trouble our Terri Schiavo page has produced. Marskell 09:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Proto

I think a petinent point here, and one that has not yet been raised here (but was in the community noticeboard discussion) is that other users could have been a lot kinder to Gordon. His prolixity tends to raise hackles, and many have been both cutting and dismissive in their treatment of him. The end result is not solely of Gordon's making. That being said, Gordon's insistence on his own blog site being a newspaper boggles the mind, and some kind of restriction does need to be imposed. His combative responses, such as can be seen in this RFAr, are also counter-productive and disruptive for other editors.

I would like a clear statement of what the injunction actually is at the top of this RFAr - as I understand it, it's "no more than one post to Talk:Terri Schiavo and related pages per day", but it would make things clearer if it were there.

I would also ask people not to refer to this community-imposed restriction as a 'ban' - a ban has a very specific and loaded meaning on Misplaced Pages, and Gordon is still free to contribute to the encyclopaedia. I do support this injunction.

I appreciate the Arbitrators do not feel the need to amend the community restriction, and agree with this, but I think the wider incivility and hostility on both sides (Gordon's, and the editor's who have disputed his edits) could well be looked at further. See the posts by Musical Linguist and Sarah Ewart on the Community Noticeboard discussion for evidence of this. Some clarification on how far and how a community-imposed injunction in this unusual instance could be enforced would also be welcome. Proto ► 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Hit bull, win steak

I became involved in the situation by reading and commenting on the relevant thread on the Community Noticeboard. I think my statements on that page should be sufficient, but in the event that they are unclear in some way, I'll be happy to answer questions. Otherwise, I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said by other people. -Hit bull, win steak 13:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Leebo86

I agree with Proto that the word "ban" is not appropriate for the action taken against Gordon. The resolution that was agreed upon in the discussion at the Community noticeboard was a restriction to Terri Schiavo articles and talk pages. I feel this is adequate. I support the actions taken by JzG in summing up the discussion. My opinion on Gordon's links and actions have remained constant throughout: his AOL and Geocities websites are not appropriate according to Misplaced Pages:External links, and he should accept the consensus against adding them without continually posting excessively long talk page comments in an attempt to persuade those who have already decided. It should also be noted that Gordon has displayed a misguided understanding of consensus, which can be seen in this "vote" he organized. It was archived by Yuser31415 and then Gordon un-archived it in an attempt to extend the vote. Leebo 14:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs)

I honestly don't know why I'm listed as a party here, I'm not currently contributing to the project and I don't recall any substantive edits to Terri Schiavo or ever dealing with GordonWatts (talk · contribs), so my help on that front is useless. Calton (talk · contribs) can be rude and abraisive and often looks for ways to force his beliefs - sometimes he's correct, sometimes he's not. If ArbCom does decide to take this case on, the behavior of all parties, not just the exhaustion of patience with Gordon, should be taken into consideration. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell (talk · contribs)

Don't have much to add to the statements above; I think the long list of people that GordonWatts feels are in the wrong here, and the wikilawyering even in his listing of "Involved Parties", sums things up much better than I can here. My participation is basically limited to this thread on my talk page; GordonWatts dropped in to accuse me of "lying", I responded by trying to clarify my concerns that he disruptively and persistently violates the talk page guidelines, and he responded that he considered the WP:TPG injunction that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views" to be "censorship". Again, I think that sums up the problems in a nutshell. I'd encourage the Arbitrators to either explicitly affirm the community consensus (as expressed by Guy), or take the case - anything else will just lead to more wikilaywering. MastCell 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by A Train (talk · contribs)

I add this statement with a mind to sharing some historical perspective regarding Gordon Watts.

Back in the Autumn of 2005, I was an impartial arbitrator working to mediate disputes on the Terri Schiavo article. The main players in this content dispute were Gordon Watts, RN, and FuelWagon. (I was using a different username at the time, one which I'd rather not put here for privacy reasons. If one is terribly interested, it could be found with a modicum of sleuthing.) All of the behavior for which Gordon is being criticized now was on display in 2005. Gordon was and continues to be, in my opinion, well-meaning and completely genuine in his desire to improve the Terri Schiavo article. Gordon, in 2005, seemed to me to have every intention of working with other editors to resolve the differences of opinion that made the article so unstable. Unfortunately, Gordon was completely incapable of subordinating his personal point of view, and when Gordon was convinced that he was correct he would immediately turn to wiki-lawyering in order to prevail in his opinion. In Gordon's mind, any sanction was merely a minor setback on the road to his eventual vindication. If this request for arbitration is not sufficient proof of that, I encourage anyone to examine Gordon's RfA.

Little has changed in the ensuing year-and-a-half. The manner in which Gordon engages other editors is almost inherently disruptive to our mode of operation at Misplaced Pages. His prolix style of debate is difficult to parse and riddled with logical fallacies. If Gordon cannot convince you of his argument's worth, he will simply drown you in prosaic volume or outlast you. He believes that editing Misplaced Pages is something akin to a natural human right, and that he in particular has more of a right than anyone.

It would be difficult to count the number of times that Gordon has been counseled to conduct himself differently since he started here. Although I don't believe it is a bad thing to be a single-issue editor, it can only be a bad thing to be a problem single-issue editor. If Gordon's ban from Terri Schiavo-related articles is upheld by the ArbCom, it will be the logical equivalent of a ban. Gordon has no interest in Misplaced Pages outside of Terri Schiavo. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but Misplaced Pages will be better without him. A Train 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Durova (talk · contribs)

It came as a surprise to see myself named as an involved party in this request. My involvement really was tangential - to the best of my recollection I haven't edited any Terry Schaivo related page and I barely participated in the CN discussion. As a procedural matter I find the idea of community topic banning intriguing. If I understand correctly, a decision by the Committee not to open this case would have the effect of confirming the community's ability to topic ban. If that interpretation is correct then perhaps this request should be archived (if the current trend continues among the arbitrators).

The one reason I see to actually open this case would be to establish a ruling and a formal precedent on community topic banning, which is significant in the larger picture of community action. Durova 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Corvus cornix (talk · contribs)

I have no idea why I am involved in this. I made one comment on the Admin Community page which indicated that Mr. Watts may be in violation of WP:COI. That is my entire participation in the discussion. This seems a completely overheated reaction. In addition, there was zero attempt to resolve any dispute Mr. Watts may have had with me prior to dragging me here. Corvus cornix 23:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Statement by Musical Linguist (talk · contribs)

I am on wikibreak but am forcing myself to write a statement. I apologize for quoting from memory and without diffs. I believe that my statement, which I shall refine if the case is accepted, will not have the kind of inaccuracies that might matter. For example, I cannot remember if Calton's edit summary had "revert not very bright troll" or "revert not-very-bright troll", but do not believe that such misquotes would alter the general impression of the situation.

I have known Gordon since he joined Misplaced Pages nearly two years ago. I strongly endorse statements by Proto and Marskell which implied that he does annoy people, but that he does not act with malice. I often wished that he wouldn't make long posts, drawing attention to his websites, telling everyone that he "did better than the governor" and "almost saved Terri's life" in a court case, telling everyone that he had "a double major", and sometimes quoting Bible verses. However, I found the way that he was treated by some much worse than the way he behaved. User:FuelWagon, for example, called him an asshole, told him to fuck off, told him he was a certifiable nutjob, and told him that he would be better off for having his ass kicked. User:Duckecho wrote some kind of parody of Gordon on his talk page, and invited everyone to come and have a look — "no charge". Duckecho also moved all of Gordon's talk page posts to the bottom of the page with an edit summary "creating a sandbox for the kids to play in while the adults work on the article", and reverted me twice when I undid it on the grounds that attacking someone's dignity was not helpful. Gordon, amazingly, never seemed to bear grudges, and even tried to get Duckecho back after he left, and felt that the ArbCom had been unfair to ban FuelWagon for his campaign of abuse. Despite his lack of spite, he continued to annoy people, posting long arguments in different colours, reminding everyone of his "double major" and of how he "did better than the governor". I frequently wished he'd stop, but was shocked and disgusted by the treatment he received. Calton, on one occasion, reverted one of his (annoying) posts with the summary "revert not very bright troll".

In September 2005, Gordon nominated himself for adminship. I was horrified, because I knew from the way people treated him that he hadn't a hope of being promoted. I do not feel that his behaviour on that occasion was admirable. He replied to almost every single oppose vote, to explain why that voter was wrong, and even appealed to Jimbo. He drew constant attention to his barnstars (seeming convinced that those who had given him barnstars would support him), and to the fact that he had never been blocked. Carnildo, after voting to oppose, blocked him for one second for constantly saying that he had never been blocked — an abusive, highly improper act, in my opinion. I was pained by the whole situation, but was unable to bring myself to support him: I knew that he would not be a good admin, being seemingly unable to conform, or to predict or appreciate other people's reactions. As his RfA is constantly brought up by Calton whenever anyone suggests that we are obliged to treat Gordon with respect, I would like to state that I never witnessed Gordon behaving like that before his RfA, and have only witnessed it once since then — on the occasion of the request for a community ban. I most emphatically reject Calton's claim that Gordon's behaviour dispenses people from the obligation to treat people with respect and to assume good faith.

Gordon's article editing is not disruptive. The insertion of his links counts for a very minor proportion of his contributions to mainspace. He has corrected numerous spelling mistakes, sometimes improved the wording, and worked on format. Since the departure of Duckecho and the banning of FuelWagon (both of whom were as passionately supportive of the "let-Terri-die" side as Gordon is of the "let-Terri-live" side), nobodoy, as far as I can tell, has argued that there is a general problem with his mainspace edits. I never saw him insert the kind of "starved-to-death" or "Terri-collapsed-under-mysterious-circumstances-while-alone-with-her-husband" statements that another editor from the same side campaigned for. His fault is that he is not prepared to examine what it is in his behaviour that annoys people, and to try to correct it. If someone tells him his long argumentative posts are a problem, he'll likely respond with an even longer, even more argumentative one, in different colours, telling the other editor to "chill out".

This particular case started when an anonymous editor (who may have been Amorrow) made numerous edits to the article, involving massive changes, which included the removal of a link to a website promoted by Gordon (not his own), but which had been added by another editor a month earlier. Gordon reverted to the editor before the anon; this automatically meant restoring the link. Calton removed the link, putting in the edit summary that it was Gordon’s "umpteenth attempt" to "sneak in" something. Gordon was upset at the unjust accusation, and protested. Calton said "You did it. Don’t lie." He also called him "Gordy-boy" and was not generous enough to withdraw his accusation when it was pointed out, with diffs, that it was false, and when it was obvious that it was upsetting Gordon.

I am not happy with JzG’s closing of the case, as he has made the outcome something which nobody voted for. Many people voted to ban Gordon completely from Schiavo-related articles and talk pages; many voted to allow him one post per day on Schiavo-related talk pages but not to restrict his article editing (although I think everyone agreed that he was not to insert his links). JzG closed the "vote", announcing that the result was that he could not edit the Schiavo articles at all, and could make one post per day on the Schiavo talk pages. That was not even one of the options that were voted on. An editor has already pointed this out to JzG, but nothing has been done because the case has been referred to ArbCom. If the case is rejected, that result will have to be looked at again.

I think it’s unlikely that the Committee will accept the case. I would urge acceptance for two reasons. One is that I think some statement from the committee on whether to abuse, insult, and belittle Gordon on the grounds that AGF does not apply to editors like him is permitted. Calton has a record of aggressive behaviour to people he considers problem editors. Several admins have agreed that his behaviour is abusive and inappropriate. Sarah Ewart called his posting of a link to a blog that ridiculed Gordon "pretty damn nasty". I would also welcome a ruling that if an editor's behaviour is irritating several other editors, he does need to stop, even if his behaviour does not technically violate any policy. I’d also like the "result" to allow Gordon to edit Schiavo articles, while restricting his talk page posts, but I will bring that back to the community if this case is rejected, as I do not think that anyone who voted to allow one talk page post per day also voted to allow no article edits (though, allowing for the fact that Gordon's own vote is presumably invalid, and that the "first choice" and "second choice" votes carry different weighting, I accept that the "votes", if analysed mathematically, might yield harsher result). Musical Linguist 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MartinGugino (talk · contribs)

The action I favor is that this debate be removed from the Terri Schiavo talk page, and the issues enumerated.
The Schiavo article itself has been ok.-- Martin | talk • contribs 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite (talk · contribs)

Gordon's emergency rebuttal to concerns that he has gone massively over the 500 word guideline for petitoners is 206 words all itself. This illustrates the problem clearly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 Clerk note: Threaded discussion removed. If you must respond, add a rebuttal statement to your own section. Thanks. Thatcher131 07:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Note Here is Guy's statement interpreting the community restriction upon Gordon's editing . Thatcher131 13:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that I would support any reasonable action, up to and including a block, that is necessary to be sure that disputants observe the conventions of this page. A rebuttal of the votes of Committee members, for example, is out of order. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's partly my fault. I pointed out to him that his "statement" was 500 words but his various rebuttals added another 1600 words. I suggested that he might keep the rebuttals to arbcom and "do something" about the rest, meaning trim or remove it, and I suggested that if his case centered around the argument that there was no consensus for action at the WP:CN, then a link there and a brief recap would be sufficient for the Arbitrators to make up their mind. Gordon has either accidentially or deliberately misinterpreted me, adding links to the discussions here (in spite of my saying that RFAR is not a discussion, see the big pink box), spamming Arbitrators' talk pages, and increasing his statement once again to over 2900 words. Because I am partly responsible for his inclusion of a rebuttal section, I do not feel competent to take further action, and request than an arbitrator or another clerk take whatever steps are necessary in this case. Recused due to bad advice. Thatcher131 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I will advise the editor that he must again shorten his statement promptly. Having said that, one more decline/reject vote will cause the case to be de-listed, so the request may become moot before it is implemented. Newyorkbrad 17:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Requests for clarification

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

Clarification regarding a self-identified pedophile

A few days ago, Arbitration Committee member Raul654 had written in response to my querry regarding self-idenitifed pedophiles, (in part) that:

If someone is still editing as a self-identified pedophile, that would seem to me to be a violation of our ruling that people should not bring the project into disrepute.

User:Clayboy (Contributions) writes on his user page that "I self-identify as a "boylover"; a pedophile and an ephebophile." My question is: whether it is within my discretion as an administrator to block Clayboy's account indefinitely and direct him to create a new account in which he refrains from self-identifying himself as a pedophile (and by extension, linking himself to his prior account)? El_C 16:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on Parole violations

Refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier

No time limit is given for the Parole violations. Am I correct to assume that this ends when the article ban ends as well? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Parole is generally indefinite unless otherwise stated. However, that decision is oddly worded compared to recent cases. I'd guess that since more than three months have passed, you should make a formal request to lift the revert parole. Thatcher131 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It does not appear that any revert paroles were actually passed in this case. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier/Proposed decision#Revert parole. (The majority in this case was 6.) Recent precedent is that an enforcement provision that remains in the decision as an artifact of a remedy proposal that was not passed, but has no adopted remedy to enforce, is to be disregarded. Compare Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision#Implementation notes. Given the prior difficulties you encountered, you might be well-advised to abide by the proposed parole limitations voluntarily if you intend to resume editing the relevant article. However, if you wish, clarification can be requested from the arbitrators on this issue, or perhaps they will comment here. Newyorkbrad 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The revert parole didn't pass, only the mooted enforcement for if it had passed. TDC is on parole from this case: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#TDC_placed_on_revert_parole, and that expires May 6, 2007. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I had actually wondered about that. There appears to be a discrepancy in the decision. In the “Proposed Remedies”, there appeared to be no consensus on a Revert Parole , then in the Proposed Enforcement section there is unanimous support for a “Parole violations” . The “Parole violations” also appears in the final decision. So now we have several questions.
1. Why is there a discrepancy between the proposed decision and proposed enforcement?
2. What does this discrepancy mean, if anything.
3. What is the expiration date, if any of the “RV Parole”?
Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
From the Winter Soldier case, a revert parole was proposed but failed. See here. Therefore the enforcement proposal does not take effect, there being nothing to enforce. (It probably should have been left off the page.) There is no revert parole from the Winter Soldier case.
However, a general one-revert parole was approved in the Depleted Uranium case, see here. As stated, you are limited to one content revert per article per day, for a duration of one year from the date the case was closed (6 May 2006). Thatcher131 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not trying to be obtuse here, but there is a discrepancy, and the final decision does lay out a provision for Rv Patrol, and has a unanimous passing vote. I was confused about this at the time as well. I am seeking clarification because the anonymous user has returned. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Well, you can't enforce something that doesn't pass. There were 10 active arbitrators on the Winter Soldier case, so a majority is 6. The proposed 1RR parole on the anonymous editor had a vote of 5-2 here, so it didn't pass. Unfortunately, this mean that now that the one year ban is over, the anonymous editor can revert more than you can, because of your parole in the subsequent DU case. That certainly seems unfair, particularly if the anon editor is continuing to revert war. I can only suggest that you try one of the following; ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP, try to get some admins to watch the page for you, use RFC to demonstrate that your version has consensus, or file a request to reopen the Winter Soldier case, showing that the anon editor is back and is continuing the same behavior. Good luck. Thatcher131 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Thatcher's opinion above: the Winter Soldier revert parole did not pass (to my disappointment), so discussion of its enforcement is nugatory; once the Depleted Uranium revert parole expires, TDC's revert rate is capped only by the 3RR (which is an electric fence, not an entitlement). ➥the Epopt 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The anon is back, but has an account now. I filed a checkuser, and it indicated that it was likely that the new user was also the anon. The edits are not taking place on the same article, but a related one. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is always the usual dispute resolution process, at the end of which, if the editor is still disruptive, is arbitration. You could try filing an arbitration case now; acceptance would depend on whether the arbitrators agree that the editor's previous pass through arbitration and current behavior are enough to demonstrate the futility of running through the whole DR process from the beginning. Thatcher131 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thatcher and The Epopt. However, one can approach the Arbcom, or even AN/I, if disruptive behaviors that were once under Arbcom sanction recur, and the process for getting those sanctions re-applied or even extended are often much less formal and quicker. Jayjg 16:12, 22 February 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: