This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) at 11:46, 20 December 2012 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/0/3): arbs who have declined this are innumerable, but not uncountable.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

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

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

SchuminWeb

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

Involved parties

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• notice posted at the RfC

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

Statement by Mangoe

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

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

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

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

On NFCC: It is, perhaps, a tedious job to do all these NFCC deletion nominations, but it is a thankless and largely pointless job to bother to review them. Right now I've been through the remaining Simpsons screenshots in Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2012 November 18, and while I would agree that a lot of the survivors could be readily deleted, I strongly suspect that the administrator who appears to be running through them now is going to ignore any "keep" messages I left and delete them anyway. Of the 160 Twilight Zone pictures in Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2012 November 19, nobody has the stamina to look through them all, and I would assume that the nominator read exactly none of the articles in which they appear, given that he used Twinkle to knock them all off in less than an hour.

The big problem is that the subjectivity of NFCC#8 is being ignored. What that subjectivity should mean is that when there are disputes about whether it is being satisfied, there should be a discussion whose consensus should prevail. What's happening instead is that admins like ShuminWeb have appointed themselves the judge of the matter and supervote a lot of discussions. And in his case (and again, he isn't the only one) he treated challenges to his judgement with contempt. And having been confronted with the problems in behaving this way, he turned around and did it again. NFCC may be a great chore, but is not a crusade against stupid uploaders, and that's the way it came across here. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

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

Statement by S Marshall

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

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

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

• There's discussion below about NFCC#8 and what constitutes normal practice at FFD. The correct venue for discussing SchuminWeb's actions in this specific case is deletion review. The correct venue for a broader discussion about whether NFCC#8 is appropriately phrased or how it should be dealt with is a community RFC. I urge ArbCom to focus on the desysopping issue and not get sidetracked into open-ended discussion on broad issues that the community can handle.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by GiantSnowman

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

Uninvolved Point of Order from User:Hasteur

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

Update: The RfC/U was closed citing that SchuminWeb has not edited prior to the RfC starting. Several highly endorsed viewpoints of concern, and that the issue was referred to ArbCom. So the ball is now in ArbCom's court. Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Quasihuman

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

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

There is a danger that this case may be side-tracked by the NFCC issue, which I believe is a side-issue at best. In fact SW did respond to the questions about the Simpson's images, see & . It was the lack of response to User:TonyTheTiger's question about a template deletion that led to the AN, and SW lack of response to the AN which led to the RFC. ADMINACCT is the issue here, not NFCC. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hahc21

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

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

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

Update #3: I have no intentions to hurry up the committee; this is not an emergency case and there is no need to rush procedures. That said, I'd like to add another tweet. From this information, I won't expect any response from SchuminWeb anytime soon, so this case will have to follow without him. — ΛΧΣ 00:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Centpacrr: The case is already accepted, and all further needed information should be provided when it begins. There is no need to keep expanding your statement in this moment, as it will look like you have a great personal interest in the matter. What needs to be done, will be done, and what doesn't need to be done, won't. Arbitrators have already expressed their willingness to suspend SW's administrative tools as a preventative measure until the case is started, so my opinion is that no more additional information is needed by now. I may be incorrect, of course. — ΛΧΣ 03:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan

He is aware of this and had not commented at all - he failed to comment at his RFC user and here also- he claims he is close to putting up the retired template - I say remove his advanced permissions immediately - his lack of communication and effort to explain his edits which as an admin he has a responsibility to do are damning = deysop - I will add that I agree completely with his cautious interpretation of the wikipedia foundations copyright and non free use statements but he needs to comment to defend them and his admin actions here. Youreallycan 20:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

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

I have reverted SchuminWeb's edits to unprotected templates, as not being the result of a consensus discussion, and therefore being Bold edits that I have Reverted per WP:BRD, and I filed edit requests for the protected templates that SchuminWeb made this edit on, but I'm somewhat disappointed that no admin has stepped up to undo those edits - after all, with no discussion or consensus behind them, these are the personal edits of SchuminWeb, and it doesn't seem at all reasonable for him to make Bold edits using his admin bit that cannot be reverted by other editors in the WP:BRD process, unless they, too, have the bit. I suggest that some admin needs to rise to the occasion and revert to the status quo ante until a discussion cane be mounted that covers these changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently addressed, see here--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by non-quite-involved Masem

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

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

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

In response to Elen's statement below: The relevant Foundation policy does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC. Our en.wiki NFCC policy has had #8 prior to the Foundation Resolution, and in fact the Foundation used our NFCC as an example of an appropriate EDP. Yes, #8 is the most subjective of the NFCC clauses, but most editors basically have come to understand that "if there is sourced discussion of the image or what the image represents in the article the image is used in, it meets NFCC#8". That said, I point to my statement above: FFD has normally operated on very little input with defaults to delete if there's no counterstatements to the nominator's statement that reflect policy. That itself is a problem that needs to be addressed by better notification of interested parties (as right now the only requirement for notification is the uploader, who may be long-gone as an editor). I do not believe that a NFCC discussion would be needed, given that the policy is always under some type of review, and that my perception is that the bulk of editors know what they need to provide for NFCC#8. Schumin's closure of these, outside of rapid fire closing, under NFCC policy really isn't the issue, since any other admin that regularly closes FFD would likely have closed these the same way. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Centpacrr

NOTE: At Arb request I have edited down my original Statement to roughly 500 words. The full original text of my statement with greater detail and additional links to be considered when the ArbCom case is formally opened can be found here.

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

After my interactions with this Admin in the Fall of 2011 over several the fair use Perry railroad images in which some of his deletions and other actions were reversed, in apparent retaliation he then systematically went through all of the images which I had uploaded over time (most of which I had created, otherwise owned the copyright, or were clearly in PD) and challenged most of them on a variety of specious grounds resulting in the necessity to waste large amounts of time to defend them. In the course of this "campaign" against my image file contributions this Admin also gratuitously accused me of "vandalism" on the completely unsupported grounds that I was "uploading disruptive images with no encyclopedic value", a completely meaningless claim. Even if that were true (which is wasn't), that does not in any way constitute "vandalism" (which is defined as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages such as by adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense") and is a very serious charge and violation of assuming good faith for any editor to make, and especially so for an Admin.

I found this experience to be both intimidating and a clear case of overt "Wikistalking" by using the powers of an Admin to retaliate against me for successfully challenging his previous administrative actions. I in fact at the time came very close to leaving the project altogether because of the subject Admin's abusive behavior (carried out in conjunction with another Admin who is now retired and has resigned his adminship) toward both me and my contributions to WP.

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

Statement by Kww (peripherally involved)

I closed the DRV related to SchuminWeb's mass deletion. I'm not aware of any previous interactions with him, although undoubtedly there are some trivial ones. This looks to me to be a problem that all admins face, and I'm well aware of how difficult it can be to deal with. The NFCC criteria represent a case where the editors that attempt to ignore or subvert the criteria work en masse. Misplaced Pages is rife with WP:NFCC#8 violations, and any admin that tries to deal with it winds up with cases where, indeed, hundreds of images need to be deleted at once. It's a fair bet that if every admin deleted a hundred WP:NFCC#8 violations a day we wouldn't be done for several months. Since SchuminWeb is one of the few that tries, he gets abused and constantly dragged to DRV. After a while, he's faced with two choices: stop working, or stop responding to what has become a chronic source of irritation and annoyance. In turn, we have two choices: we can either give in to the hordes that insist on decorating Misplaced Pages with screenshots, or we can figure out how to be more supportive of admins that wind up in his situation. I think there's a case here, but the case needs to be determining a way to help the SchuminWebs in our admin corps, not simply allowing the horde to smother an opponent by sheer weight of numbers.—Kww(talk) 22:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I think SchuminWeb is probably a lost cause. I would strongly object to using this discussion as a platform for undermining NFCC#8, though, and I don't think Arbcom has the right to do so. What we need is a mechanism to deal with the situations where we have large clusters of users that ignore our polices and grind down the admins that enforce them.—Kww(talk) 16:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Lexein (peripherally involved, and having no position)

This was originally a response to Kww, above
Removed by author as irrelevant to the purpose of this page

Statement by Kurtis

This situation is probably better handled through a motion to desysop ShuminWeb pending his response, as opposed to a full case. The question is not whether his deletions are in violation of policy, which is debatable in itself — it's the fact that he doesn't always communicate with people when his decisions are questioned. If he were more willing to explain his actions, then this ArbCom case wouldn't be happening.

On a related note, I think we really need to discuss WP:NFCC#8 as a community. Specifically, we need to try and figure out what would constitute an acceptable fair use rationale for an image within the context of whatever article it's being used on. We might even want to consider whether it would be a good idea to create a new community process or noticeboard for discussing fair-use images; I don't think IfD is sufficient as a venue for this. Perhaps something to the effect of what I'm proposing already exists? Kurtis (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

It's really regrettable this kind of thing happens. I applaud the people who can deal with the abuse being heaped on them for enforcing NFCC, but those are a small number of people, and it seems we're losing more and more of them to burnout. Frankly, I think it's a disgrace to the Foundation that they establish this sitewide policy but then foist it on their volunteers to deal with its enforcement and the abuse that comes with it. I tried to enforce NFCC once and got crapped on. I'm never doing it again, not until the Foundation steps up and defends the policy itself, at the very least by defending those who enforce it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Spartaz

As a project we are dreadful at supporting users who are burning out and the usual reaction to users whose actions show evidence of burnout is to reach for the pitchforks and flaming torches. I'm sure I said this at an earler RFAR several years ago but it appears that we have learned nothing in the interim. Spartaz 16:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by SteveBaker

I've had problems on one occasion with SchuminWeb - the matter relates to - a situation where the resolution of a test image was under debate, SchuminWeb acted in a very high-handed manner - eventually going against a unanimous "strong keep" decision from a significant number of experienced editors who were well-versed in the subject matter and using his admin powers to reverse the strongest consensus I've seen in years - and in such a manner that no non-admin could fix up the resulting mess. This feels to me like admin-burnout. Sadly (because I'm sure SchuminWeb has done great work in the past), I think it's time for him to hang up his spurs, hand over his badge and retire gracefully. SteveBaker (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue here isn't so much that SW removes images that shouldn't be removed - sure, that can happen, everyone is human. It's his failure to respond to serious debate about whether they should have been removed and the way that the underhanded ways that he sometimes employs to remove them (eg by delinking them from all of the places they appear - then claiming that they are orphaned images and speedy-deleting them before there can be informed discussion). This RfA is all about how he handles disputes about his actions. My personal issue with him wasn't about NFCC#8 at all. He demanded that the resolution of a fair-use image be reduced and then ignored the near-unanimous agreement that (a) that didn't need to be done, (b) that it would utterly destroy the article in which the image was used if it were to be resized and (c) he'd completely misunderstood the copyright status of the image. He simply wouldn't engage in discussion - deleting the image, refusing point blank to restore it and saying things like: "To restore that image requires an administrator to do since it involves deletion. No administrator with a healthy understanding of WP:NFCC would be willing to do so. In short: it is against WP:NFCC to have the larger image. So please do not ask me again about restoring the image, because it will not happen." - this being in right in the middle of a carefully thought out, reasoned discussion of the issues and in the face of unanimous consensus from highly experienced editors. As I pointed out at the time - as an admin, he is supposed to listen to the editors and help them towards a decision, then implement that decision. What he actually did (and has evidently done many times) is to form his own decision, act on it unilaterally, and then ignore all subsequent debate on the subject. SteveBaker (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Koavf

Huh I like the part where Lexein wrote "is this really the right place to attack editors not involved in this particular discussion?" and then two sentences later: "You, like Koavf, falsify the intent and language of other editors, and of policy: time to stop." Is this somehow about me? If so, please notify me (I only stumbled upon this by accident.) If someone wants to let me know that this conversation involves me, that would be nice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Bwilkins

When the AN/ANI report was active I sent a gentle, friendly e-mail to SchuminWeb that really just recommend he show up at that report say "Hmm...I may have made an error, I'll make sure it doesn't happen again; sorry". The angry reply e-mail accusing me and other admins of circling the wagons showed me we had an admin on the verge of going postal. I unfortunately believe an emergency de-sysop is required, and a case is going to either be required now (although in absentia is not fair) or when he returns - DEFINITELY this de-sysop would be considered "under a cloud" if no case goes forward now (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by PAR

I was also involved, along with SteveBaker, in the Lenna controversy (see ) and I fully support SteveBaker's characterization of the abuse and his recommendations. PAR (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/0/0/4)

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

• Comment: I would really like to hear from SchuminWeb but this edit over two weeks ago, is his last edit. If he is burnt out, it would be good if he could communicate to the committee that he's taking some time out. Otherwise, awaiting further statements,  Roger Davies 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • @Mangoe. Don't worry; we're not just going to let this float away on the ether but we don't normally desysop immediately and automatically under such circumstances.  Roger Davies 18:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements, but inclined to accept, the admin's response to the RFC/U is concerning, so I fully understand why we are here. Courcelles 18:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept and, if SchuminWeb doesn't return to editing, simply temporary desysop and hold the case in limbo, but open so this issue doesn't get lost --perhaps with a clause that makes the temp desysop permanent if he hasn't returned within, say, 180 days. If he returns soon, though, such measures will be unnecessary, and the case can proceed as normal. Courcelles 01:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have asked that a clerk ensure SchuminWeb is notified of this RFAR via email as well as the notice that has been placed on his talk page. I would hope that he responds within a few days. If not, I think the Committee may consider a temporary desysop until such time as SchuminWeb returns to address the issues, as has been done in other situations. I sincerely hope it does not come to that. Risker (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept to look at SchuminWeb's communication and action as an administrator, and likely to look at the larger issue of NFCC#8, which seems to be informing his decisions. Risker (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• If Schumin were still editing, I'd be voting to accept this case now. As it is, it appears as though his last edit was several days before the RFC was filed, so it's entirely possible that he is unaware of the RFC, and it's almost certain he is unaware of this case request. If he's not checking email, that notification may also fall on deaf ears. Regardless, the RFC does appear to document a number of long-lasting concerns that do merit further investigation. I'll withhold voting on acceptance until the end of the week to give Schumin time to respond, but I agree with Risker - if his inactivity does continue, my intention will be to vote to accept the case and support a temporary injunction desysopping Schumin and suspending the case until he should return to the project. Hersfold non-admin 19:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept, and I likely will propose a temporary injunction of some sort either removing his admin rights entirely, or barring him from making use of them, until he participates in the case. If he does indeed retire, then regrettable that we've lost an editor but the issue at hand is resolved. If he does return, then the issue of his admin rights can be resolved then. Hersfold 02:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have no doubt that SW will become aware of this Arb request sooner or later, but he also hasn't been editing since the RfC. While we have proceeded with cases when it was perceived the absence was deliberate to avoid scrutiny or they had stalled proceedings as long as possible, I don't think we've reached that stage here. There's no ongoing disruption by virtue of Web not actually editing, so I'm not sure we should be accepting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Move to accept and hold until Schumin returns, per Elen. I think that NFCC is another matter that can't be addressed here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• SchuminWeb is now aware, so we can reasonably wait a short while for some kind of response. Kww makes an interesting point though. If he is right, this is the third admin I have seen implode over NFCC issues, particularly WP:NFCC#8. This criterion requires a massive judgement call, cannot be dealt with as a factual matter, and has at its heart a philosophical view about what Misplaced Pages is. The relevant Foundation policy does not have anything in it that resembles clause 8. Perhaps it's time to hold another discussion about NFCC. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Given SchuminWeb's latest response to Hahc21, I would accept the case, based on the RfC, and suspend it. That gives SchuminWeb the opportunity to take a break from editing and adminning and, as NYB says, decide how he feels about things. If he decides to return having had a break, we can look at the matter more thoroughly at that point. If there is a desire in the community to take more of a look at NFCC generally, that can go ahead unconnected to this case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Note, I would not support a motion to remove sysop as an emergency measure, as I see no grounds for doing so while SchuminWeb is not editing and has stated publically that he intends to leave the project. I think if he returned to editing without addressing this matter, that would be grounds for an emergency desysop. If he has not returned within six months, then that would be grounds for removing the tools as a security measure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hold for now and await a statement from SchuminWeb, per my colleagues' comments above. It appears there are ample grounds presented for an arbitration case. Given that SchuminWeb has now confirmed (via Twitter) that he is aware of the request for arbitration, we can afford to wait a few days to see whether he responds on-wiki. We don't need to take any action immediately, because he isn't using administrator tools right now and there's no reason to believe he's about to start again soon. If, as appears, SchuminWeb has had enough of administrator duties on Misplaced Pages, the best course might be for him to resign as an administrator. If he does wish to continue as an administrator, he needs to respond to the concerns that have been raised, but I'm willing to give him a reasonable amount of time to do it if he asks. SchumanWeb should also bear in mind that there is a lot more to editing Misplaced Pages than administrating, and especially administrating in one notoriously contentious area, and perhaps stepping away from adminship or at least from NFCC work would allow him to recapture the more pleasant aspects of being an editor that presumably drew all of us here to begin with. In other words, he has choices here other than "arbitrate" and "retire," and I hope he will think about that. I would also like to thank many of the editors who have participated in the RfC and in this discussion, for keeping the tone much more temperate than we sometimes have seen in other cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• The community are dealing with this appropriately; however, there is an incomplete RfC on hold because SchuminWeb is absent. An ArbCom case should also be put on hold as he would not be able to appropriately explain his actions, therefore I don't feel opening a case would be a suitable option. The community appear to be requesting a temporary desysop until SchuminWeb returns, when the RfC can be finished. I would therefore decline a case, but accept a motion for a temporary desyopping, which would remain in place until the conclusion of the RfC. If, at the end of the RfC the community feel they still have confidence in SchuminWeb, the temporary desyopping is reversed; if the community feel they do not have confidence in SchuminWeb we hold a motion to make it a formal desysopping. SilkTork 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Accept for review of tool use, which is one of our core functions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Accept, and look toward suspending SchuminWeb's access to administrative tools until the case. This is non-prejudicial to the handling of the case, but instead its a way to make sure that no furtherpossibly disputed actions can take place until they come back to handle the case. If they are indeed retiring, we could make it permanent, but we'll see how events go. SirFozzie (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Accept Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Accept, with a view to then 1) indefinitely suspending the case (until the respondent returns to Misplaced Pages), and 2) desysopping SW until he answers the community's concerns and the arbitration case against him. I echo Roger's suggestion to SchuminWeb that he contact the committee if he is reading this page but is merely too burned-out to respond to this request. I would never have us hear this case in absentia (and, if I could, I would make this vote conditional upon our not doing so). AGK 22:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding SchuminWeb

Since SchuminWeb has retired after notification that a case was in process; since that case had been set to open based on arbitrator votes and elapsed time since such votes had been made; and that accepting a case and suspending it indefinitely over the end of the year creates a situation where the arbitrators hearing the resumed case will differ substantially from the arbitrators voting to accept the case, SchuminWeb is desysop'ed and may only regain the tools via a new Request for Adminship.

Support

1. As proposer. "Retiring" in the face of criticism is unbecoming in any editor, but is furthermore incompatible with our expectations of administrators, per WP:ADMINACCT. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Other

Arbitrator comments

Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Cla68

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

The issue

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

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

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

• Note, per direction below, I blanked sections on FPaS's editing history and his history with Mathsci.

Responses

• @Future Perfect of Sunrise. Actually in my original statement for this case request, I mentioned the sockpuppet investigation of Mathsci that you participated in in which Jclemens found that Mathsci was using a sock account to maintain an evidence page. I hadn't originally mentioned this before anywhere. So, I did "dredge" up a new accusation. Therefore, according to your statement in that AE request, you should have immediately blocked me. The fact that you haven't lends evidence to my assertion that your block and the rationale behind it was flawed, and you know it was flawed and indefensible. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• @SirFozzie. I'm already sanctioned regarding this issue, with a one-way interaction ban and a lengthened block log. Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• @Casliber, what's with the constant opposition ? Is it because I declined your Facebook friend request last year? Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

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

Statement by Collect

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

Statement by Jehochman

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

Statement by Seraphimblade

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

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

Statement by Youreallycan

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

• - One way interaction bans are demeaning, biased, disruptive, controlling, unfair and in in violation of NPOV and should be banned - Youreallycan 05:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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

Statement by Johnuniq

This request (to review the recent actions of FPaS regarding AE) should be rejected as the only question is whether the block by FPaS was premature—FPaS did not claim any AE "right" for the block of Cla68, yet none of the many admins who watch AE chose to do more than mildly object to the block.

In my comments at the recently closed R&I2 case (archived here) I asserted that "Cla68 is resorting to standard debating techniques, presumably to avoid having to substantiate their case against Mathsci, or to discuss whether they are in fact proxying for a banned user. Every lawyer knows that when a judge has exposed the weakness of their case, a useful response is to provoke the judge, hoping to elicit a response that would assist with an appeal, or even cause the judge to recuse. That technique should not be rewarded here." Those remarks also apply here.

The way to stop repeated disruption is to stop it. If Mathsci does something inappropriate in the future, there are plenty of untainted editors who could initiate a suitable response so there is no reason to rehash the past again and again. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by SightWatcher

I agree with the suggestion from The Devil's Advocate that this case should be combined with the upcoming request from ErrantX. Whether the current dispute arising from R&I "makes sense" or not, it is not going to end without Arbcom doing something about it. It could have been resolved months ago if Arbcom had opened a case in July, and part of why it's kept going for so long is because they never tried to take it on. If Arbcom doesn't open a case now, they will have to deal with the same issues again when ErrantX makes his request next month. It would be better to just get this over with.

If the case is accepted, I request that the drafter be someone other than Roger Davies. As AGK pointed out here, the source of the current drama is the current remedies, which Roger Davies drafted. Roger's comment "Arbitrators are not only unable to agree precisely what the root problem is but also who, if anyone, is responsible for creating the problem" suggests someone who is trying to avoid responsibility for the effects of their actions, especially after AGK already pointed out where the problem came from.

This wasn't just bad luck, or a mistake that would have been made by most other arbitrators in the same situation. I explained in my statement here that it was a very unusual decision to sanction me under R&I when I had already disengaged from the topic a year earlier. This sanction did not prevent anything which wasn't the case already, and caused me to once again become a focus of R&I disputes when before that I was uninvolved. In requests like this one, where Roger Davies diverted the discussion away from the effects of the one-way interaction bans he drafted and onto the topic of Echigo Mole, he's been the driving force stopping ArbCom from making any meaningful change to his decisions. That's one of the reasons this drama has continued unabated for so many months.

Roger Davies' comment "The aspect that is not working is our (ArbCom's) ability to rein this in" is very disingenuous. Arbcom won't know whether they are able to rein it in if they don't try. Arbcom has never tried, because every time they had the opportunity to try, Roger talked them out of amending any of his rulings. I think if Arbcom makes an honest attempt to rein it in, they're likely to succeed. They just need to find a drafter who can clean up the mess Roger Davies made in this area. -SightWatcher (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

If we have to have this case, can we please deal with the issue of what's to be done when people use Arbspace as a platform for potshots at editors they've been ibanned from? A critical thing that led to disagreement in the AE case was whether it was appropriate to block over edits made to Arbitration-related pages. While I can accept that there must be an exception from ibans where discussing another user is critical to the substance of an appeal, calling someone "obsessive" should not be exempt. If ArbCom itself wants to take responsibility for policing those pages and not have AE admins doing it, fine, but tell us so, and then actually do so and quit letting editors use your doorstep as their sniping perch. I see such sniping, including some targeted at AE admins one disagrees with (see the above diff, plus this), as the real problem here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

I've said elsewhere that it's a problem for interaction-banned users to continue their disruption through abuse of process through seeking appeals and clarifications related to their bans. Specifically, I've said that appeals and clarifications should be limited so that a banned user may only seek a lessening of their own sanction, not an increase or alteration of sanction on the other party. Also, I've said that I see no good reason why appeals from interaction bans should be conducted on-wiki. We have a BASC mailing list for a reason and I see no reason to give users another stage to continue their activities. MBisanz 05:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by ErrantX

Firstly, SirFozzie's comment is very sensible and everyone here should read it and take note.

Secondly, I think this RFAR jumps the gun. It is the next part of a cycle of arbitration attempts from Cla68, Mathsci or one of the other disputants - when this ends I would not be surprised to see yet another one. We need to let this matter rest for a moment, until after Christmas at the very least.

Thirdly, I've noted an intention to bring an Arbcom request in the new year and I wish to clear up confusion over the context of this. The R&I field looks stable and with several editors blocked the disruption on that field is at a minimum, this does not concern me. My concern focuses on Mathsci in particular and AE in general; after some extensive digging I believe that there is a growing problem with administrative decisions in this area. In particular sysops are allowing their sympathies to align with one or more parties in a dispute, which is leading to lopsided decisions. It should be noted this appears to have happened in good faith; I would like Arbcom to look at AE decision making with the aim of providing more guidance to the existing AE admins (perhaps in private as well as public). A lot of power rests at AE and needs to be given proper scrutiny.

In the case of Mathsci this has created an unfortunate situation where one party to what can only be described as a "battleground" appears to be untouchable. The failure to effectively sanction this editor has, I believe, led him to think his actions are acceptable (he has made this argument a few times that I have seen). This RFAR has drawn my attention to the Wikipediocracy thread that Mathsci spent such a lot of time moaning about, in which I see him exhibiting the same behaviour that is problematic here - namely an inability to drop a matter once it has, I don't know, offended him?

Detaching these two issues is problematic and we may need two cases. Certainly there is a wealth of evidence for the latter case, which I will probably bring first for the committee consideration. But as I stated; this needs to be in the future, when it is not tangled in either the Cla68 dispute (who seems to be going out of his way to shoot himself not only in the foot but everywhere else as well..) or R&I mess. --Errant 10:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out, I am more than willing to consider other alternative ways of resolving these issues - and would indeed prefer them - from Mathsci or anyone else. --Errant 10:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval

I heartfully endorse Johnuniq's comment. Cla68 still has to reply to Roger Davies's questions about why he feels the need to comment about mathsci, and how much he is collaborating with Captain Occam & company. I suspect that truthful answers to both questions would leave clear to all arbitrators that Cla68 has no business commenting about Mathsci. So, much like Johnuniq, I predict that Cla68 will never answer the questions. Cla68 will just keep bringing new points up to divert the discussion away and provoke a reaction.

Cla68 does not explain how the non-mutual iban has prevented him from improving the encyclopedia, and he has not provided any example of Mathsci using the iban to behave incorrectly. This means that there is no actual reason for altering or removing the iban, other than it prevents Cla68 from criticizing Mathsci and from proxying for banned editors that are annoyed with Mathsci.

As others have commented, we are now engaged in meta-meta-discussion, and nobody has explained how it's supposed to improve the encyclopedia in any manner at all. Other than some editors getting "revenge" on other editors for getting them banned, of course. Last time, I checked, "eye for an eye" was not part of arbcom's goals, but "improving the encyclopedia" was.

And it looks like the patience of most arbitrators has been exhausted. Mathsci was given advice on the last threads, about consulting admins before starting threads, and other stuff. He should re-read it and take it to heart. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Kww

Be done with this. Ban Cla68. There's no amount of quality edits that could possibly be worth the amount of time this man wastes.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/8/0/3)

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

• Awaiting statements, but a few comments first. First, to Cla68: much of your statement does not appear to be strictly relevant to the issue at hand. Could you please remove all references to incidents in which you were not personally involved? If others also feel that FPaS's conduct has been an issue, they will be able to present their own statements with evidence. Second, while I am not entirely certain about using a single block as a basis for the entire case, this may be a good opportunity to look into this whole situation again. Clearly some sanctions are either being gamed, ignored, or are proving ineffective or unenforceable, and that needs to be cleaned up, as the situation has become untenable. Finally, if a case is to be opened, it may be best to modify the timeline such that nothing major happens until after Christmas; perhaps not start the Workshop until around New Year's. A temporary injunction barring the parties from discussing one another outside of the case pages could be used to prevent issues from exploding further in the meantime. Hersfold non-admin 16:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • A couple of points. First, if this is deferred, then the Evidence phase should not start until after the New Year, as FPAS says he'll be out of action until then. Second, the "whole situation" has been going on for at least three years. Are you suggesting that we should hear from everyone who has been sanctioned and reappraise?  Roger Davies 18:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Possibly. Clearly something's not working, and needs to be fixed; if that means going back to the drawing board, then so be it. I know that will prove very difficult and time-consuming for us as a Committee, and have to agree with Jehochman in that it's not likely to end well for anyone. My concern, however, is that the current sanctions are either not sufficient to resolve the disruption here, or are worded such that there are loopholes being exploited. If the involved parties would stop taunting each other and go be productive, this wouldn't be an issue, but until/unless they do we apparently need to replace those sanctions with more effective ones or levy additional sanctions to make those shortcomings moot. Hersfold non-admin 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The aspect that is not working is our (ArbCom's) ability to rein this in. By permitting endless requests, and failing to keep the scope and duration of each under control, we are unnecessarily prolonging, exacerbating and complicating the core dispute. Now, if Cla68 wishes to bring a case against FPAS, so be it, we can deal with that request simply, on its merits, and with a minimum of drama. Anything else is simply asking for trouble.  Roger Davies 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements,  Roger Davies 18:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline: Casliber and Philknight (both sadly leaving the committee soon - they will be missed) summarise my own feelings well.  Roger Davies 22:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• First off, Cla68 shorten your statement to 500 words please; it's over 840 now. And please focus on your own interactions with FPaS. Will consider further after additional statements. Risker (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Decline. Risker (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Awaiting further input but currently leaning toward declining. Comments:
  • I am concerned—this is mostly for my arbitrator colleagues—that we may be sending mixed messages and confusing Cla68 (and parties to potential future cases) about what is expected of them in a request for arbitration. If Editor:A files a request for arbitration because he thinks Admin:X wrongly blocked him for 24 hours, and that's all there is to the request, the Committee is almost certain to decide that "we aren't going to open a whole arbitration case to address a single 24-hour block that was lifted after 10 hours, unless the block was blatantly outrageous, therefore request for arbitration declined." On the other hand, if User:A presented evidence that in recent months Admin:X has also questionably blocked Editors:B, C, D, E and F, and we found cause for concern, a case might well be accepted. So it is often necessary for a filing party to discuss incidents involving a user other than himself, and I could understand if Cla68 were confused that he's been asked to narrow his focus in this instance.
  • If the focus of this case remains on Fut.Perf.'s block of Cla68, I will likely vote to decline it unless something additional is presented beyond what we've seen. This request arises from the recent series of Race and intelligence requests for clarification/amendment and for enforcement on this page. As I mentioned in commenting on the last request that was just archived yesterday, this series of requests involving Mathsci, Cla68, and a handful of other editors has reached the point of being almost impossible to explain to someone not steeped in it—a situation that often (though not always) correllates with too much inside baseball and navel-gazing and not enough editing. One could say that primary disputes arise from disagreements about the editing of articles, while secondary or meta disputes arise from disagreements about comments about the editing of articles, or about the administrative aparatus (RfA, ANI, etc.) that has developed in order to (I hope!) facilitate the editing of articles. This series of disputes has reached (at least) the tertiary or meta-meta level, being a disagreement about who can talk about whom in a discussion about who behaved badly on the arbitration pages a few months ago, with no articles anywhere in sight, and with no evidence the quarrelling parties would ever come into contact anywhere on Misplaced Pages except on the arbitration pages themselves. This is absurd.
  • In which regard, and I am speaking loudly and clearly to both Cla68 and Mathsci here: the Wikipediocracy thread in which the two of you have been sniping at each other, as a break from sniping at each other on this page, is an embarrassment and ought to stop. I've long been a defender of Wikipedians' right to participate in critic sites such as Wikipediocracy and its predecessor, and have done so myself. I'm also well aware of how difficult it can be to refrain from responding to a criticism on such a site that one perceives as unfair. Nonetheless, given all the circumstances of this situation (including real-world circumstances that I won't mention here), I have no hesitation in counselling Mathsci that it is not in his interest to be participating in that forum at this time. And given that fact, I request that Cla68 allow him to step away from there without one or more parting shots that will draw him back in. I suppose that this paragraph is not authored in my capacity as an arbitrator, but it is very, very good advice.
  • As a general statement (without ruling on the particular case), when there is an AE discussion underway, it will usually be better practice to await a consensus outcome of the discussion before blocking anyone, unless there is ongoing disruption.
  • An editor's good-faith statement that he or she will be travelling for a few days, unavailable over the holidays, etc., is entitled to respect and consideration in a request for arbitration or anywhere else on Misplaced Pages. Youreallycan's comments that he "disagrees" with Fut.Perf.'s upcoming unavailability during the holiday week, and that in an "internet world" Fut.Perf.'s holiday travel plans are "not a big issue–deal with it," are ill-mannered and ill-advised and should not be repeated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline. Having given this further thought overnight and read the most recent comments from everyone, I remain convinced that it's in everyone's best interest to get this set of disputes off the arbitration pages for awhile, in the hope and firm expectation that it will deescalate rapidly. I also note that I don't follow Cla68's most recent comments, in which he suggests that Fut.Perf. must know that his original block must have been bad because Fut.Perf. hasn't blocked him again. It stands to reason that having had his original block challenged, and having learned in the AE discussion that it was considered borderline at best, Fut.Perf. didn't repeat the same block. And it certainly wouldn't have been in order for Fut.Perf. to block Cla68 for comments that Cla68 made in a request for arbitration against Fut.Perf. himself, so nothing can be inferred from the fact that Fut.Perf. didn't do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• decline - after discussion, the block was lifted in short order. Arguments for the legality of the block were made at the time, with enough grey area to allow a conclusion by discussion, which indeed occurred. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68 - I'd forgotten about that actually. Either you or someone using your name had made a "friend" request on yahoo messenger/chat, and I'd presumed it was you and proffered a neighbourly "friend" request on facebook. I'd actually thought no more of it. If that wasn't you making the original chat request then I guess I and you got spoofed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've spent a lot of time thinking on what to do with this toxic area. We've had numerous requests, some administrator actions that were not up to the standard we expect of administrators, and attempts to stoke a dispute off wiki and then use that off-wiki stoking of the dispute to try to gain an advantage ON-wiki, How we resolve this? Well, we need to consider bringing upt he past failed requests, see what didn't fly there, and take the next logical step. I would urge the major parties (both named and unnamed in this specific request) to informally or formally agree to have no action or conflict with each other, administrative, editorial, or conflict-wise, or the next step WILL be to hand out sanctions. SirFozzie (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. The block was lifted after 10 hours by Fut.Perf, and Cla68's comment that prompted the block was ill advised. In this context, I don't think we need a case about this block. In my opinion, the question of whether or not there should be a more wide ranging case about this topic area can be left to next year's committee. PhilKnight (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline partly per PhilKnight, though I do think a wider-ranging case is likely going to be necessary. Courcelles 22:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. Case as stated does not warrant further investigation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. AGK 23:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

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

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

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

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

Statement by Tariqabjotu

The Jerusalem article has a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

In response to Hersfold's questions:

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

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

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

Once again regarding the binding RfC: If you all are going to leave this with suggesting a binding RfC, can one of you at least provide the framework for it? Perhaps a small group of administrators could be charged with unanimously agreeing on its conclusion and paying attention to it to some extent? Perhaps you could dictate where and how the RfC is advertised (if at all) to gain a broad section of the community? Binding RfCs don't generally come organically (especially as very little is truly "binding" around here) and, as you've seen, seemingly permanent resolutions have not really held. -- tariqabjotu 04:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Dailycare

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Alertboatbanking

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

Ravpapa nicely states it as " there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively" This I think is absolutely correct and I believe the failure is inevitable.

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

Binding mediation would be a good idea. I dont think an RFC would be a good idea for this, its too involved an issue for *Support. nableezy - 07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012

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

The referees asked the right questions :

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

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

• • • Request to the arbitrators : 2 At least 3 arbitrators suggest a '(binding) RfC' closed by a designed independant editor/admin. This was tried in the past and suggested that 3 admins close such RfC. But the contributors could never be found. Given they are not involved and it seems there is a a least consensus to refer to ArbCom, could the arbitrators suggest/chose 3 editors that would close the case ? I am confident that this would help.
      Anyway, I still think a 'binding mediation' eg by the same 3 could be much more efficient. If this mediation could be done on a dedicated page to which we could refer in case of failure, that would even be better. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Question to the arbitrators : I may be right or I may be wrong in considering that contributors refuse to move forward constructively and WP:GAME the system. We can comply to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF strictly but then nothing will evolve and this talk page will remain a WP:BATTLEFIELD (or a multi-players on-line game, whichever is the less childish). According to your point of view, how can we manage this contracdiction ? What community's principles give an answer to such a situation ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

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

Some comments on mediation - According to Misplaced Pages:DR#Last_resort:_Mediation, binding mediation is about "reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone". I don't think anyone should be concerned whether I, as a party to the mediation, find a solution acceptable. The objective should be to reach an agreement that maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines whether I or anyone else likes it or not. It should be possible to demonstrate that it is a near-optimal solution based on evidence in the sources, not the happiness of the participants. Having watched this issue for years, it seems to me that it is not possible for some editors to agree to a solution that does not include the unattributed statement of fact in Misplaced Pages's voice that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel". No amount of evidence in the form of sources that present the information in ways other than a statement fact will persuade these editors that the inconsistency matters and is a policy violation. It's therefore not possible to reach "an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone" that also maximizes compliance with policies and guidelines at the moment. They are mutually exclusive and will remain so unless the behavioral issues are fixed and editors are forced to follow the rules. I can see mediation working if it had zero tolerance for various behaviors such as voicing a personal opinion on an issue rather than citing a source/repeatedly making demonstrably false statements/using original research/arguing from first principals etc and the editor was immediately removed from the mediation process. At the moment there is zero cost for behavior that disrupts the process of finding a solution that complies with policy. Until that changes so that this is only about the sources, the policies and the guidelines, I don't think mediation can resolve it. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Casliber, you said "reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement". I see this kind of comment quite often but do you have any evidence based reason to believe that AE can handle it ? I don't. I've been editing in the ARBPIA topic area for years. I don't know how many AE reports I've watched but it goes back to at least Archive34 and AE is currently on Archive127. What I haven't seen is evidence that complicated issues covered by ARBPIA like persistently biased editing, anything that could involve large amounts of evidence, can be handled at AE. AE hasn't dealt with issues like that for ARBPIA. It has been used to deal with technical violations/edit warring and editors who make patently disruptive edits in the topic area. If AE could deal with (and editors could be bothered to file reports about) the longer term more fuzzy behavioral issues, I don't think we would be here today. The only people who could survive in the topic area would be those who follow the rules and edit neutrally. I would like to see AE become a venue that could deal with these kind of issues but that would probably involve filing test cases (and a lot of drama). Sean.hoyland - talk 20:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

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

Statement by BritishWatcher

I am not convinced that Arbitration on this matter is the right way forward although i agree with a lot of what Tariqabjotu has said. There are three primary problems at present it seems to me and as Arbcom does not usually rule on content matters only one aspect of the situation might be resolved with arbitration and not the wider problem. Firstly we have in recent months seen a number of attempts to change the article, some of which have not been specific proposals, merely the fact some editors believe the current article introduction is wrong. There have been clear opposition to proposals and more editors times seem to support the current wording than any change, let alone a specific change.

Those of us supporting the status quo (which was based on the compromise agreed around two years ago) have on a number of occasions been accused of breaking the rules or doing something wrong, merely for supporting the status quo. So one thing Arbcom could probably help with is reinforcing the fact people are free to support the status quo, and that a change should only take place if there is a consensus. Not a change imposed by a minority of editors seeking to push aside objections.

The other two problems are content issues. The current wording is neutral and balanced. It states that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel but that this is not internationally recognised. That is accurate and balanced, and was a significant change prior to two years ago when the introduction did not mention at all the international community view in the first sentence, because it is handled in detail in another paragraph of the introduction.

Certain editors are insistent that the article introduction be changed to treat Palestine and Israels current situation in regards Jerusalem as entirely equal. That is not the case, and if we tried to treat them as equal it would be giving clear undue weight to the Palestinian POV. Jerusalem is the defacto, and dejure capital of Israel, rightly or wrongly that is indisputably the situation, although the future status of the city is certainly part of the dispute and that is already explained in the introduction.

Yet a few editors are demanding the introduction say Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and Palestine. When I challenged one of the editors demanding the change to provide sources for this claim saying it would help justify the proposal , they initially said they would , then when I asked for specific reliable sources that say Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine (which is what they have been demanded be added to the article).. the editor in question all but admits there are not the sources to back up such a statement. . Not only did they never provide the sources requested, none of the other editors demanding change stepped in to provide sources either.

So theres no case based on Misplaced Pages policies, and no case based on sources for the change they propose. Also there is a third problem that is often overlooked. If we are to change the article to pretend that Jerusalem is not the defacto and dejure capital of Israel (and in Israel), then many other things about the article have to change too. For example at present the infobox shows the Israeli flag of Jerusalem, Israeli emblem for Jerusalem, the mayor of Jerusalem. These would all have to be changed along with huge amounts of the article if the small number of editors got their way and had the article act as though Jerusalem is not the capital and a city in Israel. Also none of those demanding change have produced evidence that a country cannot decide its own capital, or that a capital is dependent on international recognition. The international community officially do not recognise Jerusalem as the capital (something that is made clear) but there are numerous sources showing that Jerusalem does serve as Israels capital. Some countries do not recognise the fact the state of Israel even exists, we do not seek to say it may not exist in the first article of the Israel article.

So again, im not convinced arbitration is the right way forward, but if there was a ruling that editors are entitled to oppose proposals and support the status quo, it would at least help bring to an end some of the dismissive tones by those demanding the change, as though we have no right to take the positions we do.

Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ravpapa

There is so little one can add to a discussion so prolix! But I feel two things must be said:

First, editors and arbitrators who are looking for a permanent solution to this problem should be disabused: there is no permanent solution, because the situation is not permanent. The political forces affecting Jerusalem's status are constantly changing, and the article should reflect that. What we decide (or, more likely, don't decide) today will not be right tomorrow.

Second, arbitrator SirFozzie has suggested "binding arbitration" as a solution. I would strongly support such an approach if one existed. But, as far as I know, there is no such thing as binding arbitration (am I wrong?). The latest attempt at arbitration failed because not all the parties agreed to participate. Which is why, I believe, Tariq chose this forum to move toward a solution.

Nishidani and others are right that this case is outside the formal purview of the arbitration committee. I would suggest, however, that this is a time for you to take a bold step, live by the spirit of the fifth pillar, ignore all rules, and accept this case. To do otherwise would be to admit that the Misplaced Pages way has failed: that there are some topics about which we cannot write objectively, and that there are content disputes so intractable that the collaborative editing approach is doomed to failure. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Heim

Arbs who are suggesting a binding RFC or mediation, are you going to make a motion mandating one? If not, I can't see how this is going to happen. Number one, there's no guarantee the parties will make an agreement to such a method, and number two, without ArbCom's stamp, there's no guarantee the result of such a process would be honoured. The naming of Macedonia-related articles was dealt with by an RFC mandated by the committee itself and has as such been clearly enforceable. Leaving it to the community to sort it out without ArbCom's authority tends to lead to more and more discussion with no results. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

I've been thinking about the same thing for days, and Heimstern beat me to it. What makes the binding RFC binding is ArbCom's say-so. Otherwise, one of the parties won't agree to it just as they wouldn't agree to the mediation, and the whole thing will be a wash. You need at least a motion for it. --Rschen7754 08:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang

The issue at hand is no doubt a complex one which has been an issue almost since the inception of Misplaced Pages. Some community members and arbitrators have suggested a method of binding content resolution for this dispute (which sounds very familiar), however I note that preference seems to be leaning towards holding a binding RFC as opposed to some other form of binding resolution (like mediation). If I could offer my thoughts on the matter, binding RFCs have been used now and then on Misplaced Pages, with varying results. Some have success and bring peace, others are hopeless failures. Sometimes this is because the issue is so bitter that reconcilliation between editors is impossible, and the period in which an RFCs result is binding serves only as a brief ceasefire in a bitter war. In other situations (like the Abortion RFC), the structure of the discussion/vote is the cause of downfall. I would suggest mediation to be the better alternative, under the guidance of an experienced mediator. I am quite surprised that the Mediation Committee rejected a request for mediation when fourteen out of the sixteen listed participants who commented on the case (out of a total nineteen) accepted the request (and the requirements of acceptance was changed earlier this year to not require unanimous acceptance), but nevertheless, what's done is done.

I agree with what Nableezy said about a binding RFC being a bad idea. This situation seems to be too entrenched for anything except a split vote to occur, with minimal community input due to the contentious nature of the dispute, ending with a result of no consensus. Binding mediation has no real precedent that I know of, but it may be what's needed. For what it's worth, I'd be happy to mediate such a dispute - I think I'd be able enough to do so. But it all comes down to what's best for the dispute. I'd suggest mediation, failing that, a salted earth remedy like the Scientology case may be required. Steven Zhang 14:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by cptnono

The talk page has obviously failed. Editors are filibustering to the point that it is almost as disruptive as edit warring and it appears that no one wants to budge out of fear of hurting their cause. As mentioned on the talk page, a request for mediation with certain parties not invited could be a solution. For example: I don't want to spend hours discussing the issue. Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back and let those without such passion hammer it out in a more structured, concise, cooler, and objective manner. An RfC might be fine but a select group of editors already involved might fix this in mediation. Conversely, people are going to argue over this issue no matter what the wording is so maybe the status quo is perfectly fine. The article might actually be sufficient as is and the issue is primarily talk page behavior instead of how the article currently comes across to the reader. I lean towards the former since there is nothing that cannot be improved.Cptnono (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Clerk notes

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

• Sent by me to the clerks' mailing list, a moment ago: "Dear clerks, You will notice that it is now mathematically impossible for the Jerusalem RFAR to be accepted. However, an arbcom-l thread regarding this case request is pending, and we are waiting to hear back from one arbitrator on a particular point of discussion. Therefore, please do NOT archive this case request until further notice. I've copied this instruction to the on-site clerk notes section." AGK 23:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/3)

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

• Awaiting statements, though I see the argument that a case would be useful here. Courcelles 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a good point below -- is there enough misconduct to justify the time spent on a case, or can we get to the point quicker, and where a case would surely end up, by ordering a binding RFC by motion as we have done in cases with similar problems in the past? (Abortion, Ireland, Muhammad Images, etc.) Courcelles 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Decline as a full case, though I support a motion ordering a binding RFC, and agree a motion is necessary to actually make it binding. Courcelles 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements, but I'll note that this sort of dispute is exactly where WP:YESPOV, applied in good faith by editors striving to reach a neutral statement describing a contested reality, is supposed to prevail. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with a binding RfC, if that's the direction we want to go. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• I also await statements, but I note the apparent failure of community-bred compromise to hold for any great length of time, and I consider that failure to indicate that an arbitration case may be necessary. The failure of previous attempts at mediation is particularly concerning, and I welcome comment regarding why mediation has so far failed to achieve a lasting solution to this dispute. AGK 01:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• On reflection, existing conduct issues can be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions provision of WP:ARBPIA. As a result, only a content dispute is left, which this committee can merely pass back to the community. Decline because, sadly, we can do no more good to this dispute. AGK 23:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just to make it clear up front, the Committee will not rule on the content-based part of the dispute (although I don't think the filer expects that); we will only review the allegations of misconduct. I'm also going to wait on more statements, but I do have a few questions for those posting statements to provide input on:
  1. What specific allegations of misconduct are you making? Tariq's initial statement mentions a number of different accusations made by a number of people towards a number of people, but doesn't seem to make any claims of his own. Dailycare's also alleges misconduct, but not by any specific user, and seems to focus more on content besides.
  2. Is this misconduct impacting other areas of contention within this topic area?
  3. Is there some reason why existing discretionary sanctions will not suffice to resolve this dispute?
  4. Would an RFC on the lead section, in which members from the entire community participated, work to bring a compromise to the central issue of content?
  5. If this case is accepted, what would you see as an ideal outcome of the case? Hersfold 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • • Decline as a primarily content-based dispute. I would also suggest a binding RFC to resolve this matter. If it can be demonstrated that there is misconduct preventing discussion beyond the issue of the introduction to Jerusalem I may reconsider (and I would again ask for answers to the questions above, which most people seem to be ignoring), but I'm gathering from the statements so far that this is not the case. Hersfold 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline As this case stands, I would suggest binding mediation or binding RfC, I'm not seeing enough "misconduct" to warrant a lengthy arbitration case hearing. SirFozzie (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like the parties to answer whether they think a binding RfC would be a good venue to attempt a more enforced compromise. As mentioned in the statements, this is a relatively "simple" question in terms of the actual content that is the source of the dispute--and ArbCom wouldn't and couldn't be saying what version is correct or proper, so it would be a lot of time and energy that might be better spent at RfC rather than ArbCom. Alternatively, I'd like to see all parties provide more examples of serious behavioral problems. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline as this is a content dispute (which is now spilling out onto this case request), and such a dispute is best sorted via a RfC where it is agreed at the start that it will be closed by a named independent admin, and that the outcome will be binding on all users, and can only be changed by a further RfC. SilkTork 01:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline reports of transgressions should be brought to Arbitration Enforcement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. Risker (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Jerusalem

The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what will be included in the article Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), with a specific emphasis on the lead section and how Jerusalem is described within the current, contested geopolitical reality. As with all decisions about content, the policies on reliable sourcing and neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The discussion will be closed by three uninvolved, experienced editors, whose decision about the result of the discussion will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion.

Support

1. As proposer. Adopted from the Muhammad images case. Jclemens (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
2. With two caveats, as there is no decision in the usual sense, the disc. sanctions should refer back to the I/P case; and 2) we should likely decide who the closers are going to be now so they can guide and supervise the RFC instead of being thrown a megabyte of text in a couple months. Courcelles 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Other

Arbitrator comments