This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Previous ArbCom discussion?

1) On her blog last year, ex-arb Kelly Martin remarked about the current arbs that, "rumor has it that they've traded over 600 emails to date on their internal mailing list discussing what to do about SlimVirgin and Jayjg, without coming to any decision or conclusion." [1]. If so, this might be relevant for this case. I guess the easiest way to confirm whether Kelly's statement is true or not is simply to ask directly. I'll phrase it as a yes or no question. Has the ArbCom, within the past year or so, held any discussions addressing concerns about SlimVirgin's and/or Jayjg's editing or administrative actions in Wikipedia or other Wikimedia project? Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JP, you can't even say yes or no, even if it might pertain to this case? Cla68 (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Discussions on the list are and will remain private. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

my view is that it would be inappropriate for jpgordon to comment further. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighted SlimVirgin userspace page?

2) Request confirmation from an arbitrator on if this page from SlimVirgin's userspace has been oversighted User:SlimVirgin/GNT [2] [3]. Cla68 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrase question for the arbs, if the quote below is accurate, was the page oversighted from SV's userspace because it was, in fact, being used as described by Gnetwerker? Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

[Response to B] If the page was just used to draft some changes for her userpage then why was it oversighted? If it was used to draft content for a BLP, content that was later determined to be in violation of the BLP policy, then I can understand it being oversighted. If an arbitrator could clear up the issue here, if any, that would put this question to rest. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[To KWSN] I can't read your link, was it admin deleted? If so, could you post the diff content below? Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I understand to be the admin-deleted statement from the editor mentioned by Kwsn complaining to SV about the oversighted page in question:

“

Please stop harassing me:

You accusations of sockpuppetry against me have gone way overboard. It appears that you have embarked on a mission to label every anonymous IP or single-use account that has edited any page I have ever touched to be one of my sockpuppets, as well as labelling anyone with the temerity to challenge you publically as such. You have little (in many cases no) evidence to support these claims, other than a spurious "Contributions" link. It would appear from Wikipedia and various other public forums that you have many enemies, but blaming me for every nasty thing that happens on Wikipedia is unwise and unreasonable. It is unwise as it conveniantly blames one person (me) for everything you don't like, rather than the multitude who you have offended; and it is unreasonable, as the accounts/IPs you label as sockpuppets have, in many cases, made numerous contributions to articles with which I have no history, and in most other cases have done nothing offensive whatsoever. I have no doubt that, as an administrator and immune from scrutiny, that you will change your behaviour, but I will say this:

I am not using the accounts you have listed as either suspected or actual sockpuppets;
I am not harassing you, stalking you, or involved in any articles not in my contribution list; and
I do not appreciate your punitive laying of every nasty action on Wikipedia at my doorstep.

The situation with User:Anomicene was unfortunate (and I won't explain it because you wouldn't believe me anyway), but you more than anyone, are now in danger of fostering a permanent state of ill-will, and I suggest that, as you have counselled others so often, just move on, or failing that, please apply more diligence to finding your perpetrator(s), as it is not I. -- Gnetwerker 17:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

”

Cla68 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not an arb, but the lack of any revisions seems to me like it has been. My question now is why? Kwsn (Ni!) 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, but what does this have to do with the case? Nobody involved in this case has oversight permission, so if oversight policy were violated (I don't see how it could have been, but if it were) it's outside the scope of this case. --B (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I googled it and found http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=9671&st=0&p=34156&#entry34156 - this falls into the "who cares" category unless there's something more here. --B (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that thread, it's basically SV using a subpage to track someone else, something she cuts down Cla68 for in the evidence section. I'm curious now as to what the actual contents are, and why it had to be oversighted if it was just a page with evidence of wrong doings. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this case should not be considered limited to the initially named parties, and any actions by checkusers and oversighters that relates to the named parties would certainly fall within the scope of this case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un-indent: I did some digging... and found something interesting. The user in question asked SV to leave him alone, obviously she didn't stop. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the deleted revisions of Special:Undelete/User_talk:SlimVirgin/temp were deleted for any privacy reason or anything like that. Rather, ElinorD (talk · contribs) was splitting SlimVirgin's talk page archives into separate pages for her and it looks like she stopped before finishing. I don't see any reason not to make these revisions available for evidence gathering, though presumably that decision should be left to a clerk. Jayvdb, do you feel it would be appropriate to restore this page? --B (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant answer that on the spot, but I'll start looking through these deleted revisions. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the contents of the /GNT page that Cla mentions above though - which has almost certainly been oversighted. No deleted edits. Nothing in the move log. Just multiple deletions int eh deletion log indicating there was somethign there at some point. Viridae ^Talk 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; you will need to ask arbcom about that page. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is added as a party

3) Per arb's comments, JzG is added as a party to the case. Following the close of the case, it is renamed to C68-FM-JzG-SV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just want to make it official Kwsn (Ni!) 22:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This case is complicated enough without that addition. Viridae ^Talk 23:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal, not a statement of something that has already happened, right? This is a really bad idea. Other than some of the same people being involved, there is zero overlap. I really wish the arbs would reverse themselves on this one. --B (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter - the principles are essentially the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B is absolutely correct. The arbs need to take the JzG case separately. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The JzG case is about JzG's behaviour; there is very little confluence, and I would hope the arbitrators treat and consider it separately. Neıl 龱 07:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Neil and B, JzG's issues while similar are not related to FM, SV, and Cla's issues. And shouldn't be the same hearing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't for the life of me see how turning this into the Omnibus Editor and Administrator Misconduct Act helps to detangle an already complicated situation. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Forward: Well, it appears that Chris has cast the 4th net !vote to merge, so it seems that it will be merged anyway. I will note that we now have over 750 links on the evidence page and for what it is worth I concur with Raymond. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Neil and others, the two are separate and should be treated as such. DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOOT now that the arbs voted to merge the case. JzG is a party. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Oversighted SlimVirgin edits?

4) In this this thread [4] at ANI, some of the links to SlimVirgin's and another editor's edits don't work, including [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Since I'm not receiving the "this page was deleted" or "you're not authorized" screens, I assume those diffs were oversighted. Looking at the ANI discussion, I don't see why they should have been oversighted, if they were. Would the arbitrators look at them, determine if they were oversighted or oversighted properly, and, if not, restore them and provide the name of the oversighter and the date(s) that the oversighting was done? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Cool, the stereotypical clusterfu*k. We as a community have apparently come a long way since those dark ages. I'd like to learn at least the necessary basics about the circumstances of any oversightings that took place. dorftrottel (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see five of them fine just by clicking on them, and the rest appear to be among 515 deleted edits of a user talk page which administrators can access (although the diff links above do not work for deleted revisions - not sure how to identify which ones they are). If they were oversighted, even admins can't see them. Orderinchaos 21:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have temporarily restored the edits so we have working links. At the conclusion of the case, all edits prior to 26 July 2006 should be re-deleted. Orderinchaos 21:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for FloNight

5) FloNight, during my RfA, you were the second person to lodge an oppose vote [13], approximately an hour and a half after SlimVirgin had successfully requested an extension of the RfA and placed the first oppose vote. Then, in my subsequent self-RfC, you added your own comments supporting SlimVirgin's position [14] and then endorsed SlimVirgin's version of the events in question [15]. My request is, if you decide to participate in discussing this case with the other arbitrators and/or voting on proposed decisions, would you please confirm that you can be impartial and objective in adjudicating this case? Cla68 (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

(To Ncmvocalist) FloNight didn't say that she was recused, she said that, "Until further notice, please mark me as 'away'" [16]. Anyway, since she is currently listed as "inactive", I'm striking my question. I didn't realize that this was the case since I don't check the Clerk's Noticeboard. Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is below. You can remove this request for now if you like; if B agrees too - it means the request itself and its comments are removed and this part of the page is less clogged up too. A suggestion anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the question and rephrased it differently. Cla68 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm glad you understand that I made the suggestion for the reasons stated, and NOT because I thought your request was unjustified or some other imagined reason. It still may need a bit more rephrasing though - even if she formally recused, this does not preclude her from discussing with arbitrators. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Follow up to this ... out of curiosity, I took a look at FloNight's editing patterns to convince myself one way or the other whether recusal would be appropriate. FloNight, your third most frequently edited user talk page is User talk:FeloniousMonk. In one of your 31 edits there, you said Aww...my friend, what a sweet guy you are to say such things. :-) It's been a delight to get to know you and the folks you listed above. Looking forward to editing many more articles with you all.. You also were a party to a discussion over the block/unblock of Heatedissuepuppet (talk · contribs) - [17], [18], [19], [20] - and this block/unblock is one of the issues raised in this arbitration. While I have no doubt that you are a trustworthy person and would do your best to evaluate the issues in an objective manner, this obviously creates an appearance of a potential bias and I'll go ahead and say what I imagine Cla68 might have been thinking, but holding back on saying - I believe that it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself. --B (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She already indicated she will not be voting on this case at the clerk's noticeboard. Move along. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took me five minutes after reading this to find what you are talking about - [21] - I didn't even know this board existed - since she wasn't marked as recused on the request, I had no idea and presumably Cla68 didn't either. It isn't necessary to say "move along". --B (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you know what it is now, and yes, it isn't - I lost my patience. Asking an arbitrator to recuse herself when she's made it clear that she is unavailable (on her talk page) was probably another thing worth noting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this, or, better, a straight out request to recuse. B may have struck their comments and diffs but that does not in any way decrease their validity. In particular, I find it very telling that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cla68#Comments_by_FloNight was endorsed by just three parties out of all the participants: SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Crum375. That shows that her view in that case might be somewhat far from the accepted view of matters that we are seeing develop here. That this particular arbitrator is away does not make the request invalid, as arbitrators come back, sometimes at the very end of the a case. That is their prerogative, but this request should remain part of the record. Regardless of what this arbitrator chooses to do, and regardless of the ultimate outcome of the case, the community will thus be able to judge for itself. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this for the valid reasons that have been presented, if only to put it on the record. However, I think the wording could be improved further. Why dance around the cake like that? There are clearcut, intersubjectively communicable reasons for her to recuse herself from this case. So why not just phrase this as a straight request for recusal? dorftrottel (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my request because it is moot. If she has already stated that she is not going to be involved, there is no need for the magic word of "recuse". --B (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, but she didn't say that. She said 'Until further notice'. dorftrottel (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I can't imagine her doing that and then coming back for this case. The need for recusal is so flagrantly obvious that doing something like that as an end run around it just doesn't strike me as likely. --B (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to protecting SlimVirgin, haven't her friends already demonstrated a lack of rational judgment? There is nothing reassuring about FloNight's statement at all. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: [22] ... I think perhaps this request needs revisiting. I suspect many of us did think this case would be farther along by the end of June. Recusal seems highly appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi - FloNight is remaining 'inactive' here - which I guess is materially the same as 'recused'? either way folks, I'd make sure you're comfortable here for a while longer ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)someday I must do a quick analysis of edits to arbcom pages by parties / involved editors / independents and arbs... might make interesting reading?[reply]

I agree that an evaluation of parties on workshop and evidence pages might be interesting. Especially, just from a numbers standpoint. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put in a note that if FloNight's return to activity means that she intends to participate in this case, I strongly support a request for her recusal from this case. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 12:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my initial reply - she has confirmed elsewhere in addition to that instance cited that she is to be marked inactive for both this and G33 cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of SV's user talk page history

6)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe that the original admin deletion of SV's talk page history truly was an unintended accident. But, after doing so, the admin responsible should have restored it all in a timely manner, which apparently hasn't occurred. I'd say that cleaning up their mistakes with the admin tools is an expected responsibility for admins. Cla68 (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am wondering if and when the history of SV's talk page is going to be returned. The log suggests it has been deleted in large part since June 19 of last year. Discussion in July shows that there were some difficulties with replacing it, but that this was intended to happen.[23] However, nearly a year later much of it is still missing. I'm wondering first if this is something the arbiters will address, and second if it should not be replaced while the case is ongoing. Mackan79 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mackan79 is aware, but for the benefit of others, this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_8#User_talk:SlimVirgin ++Lar: t/c 11:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware, but thanks. Mackan79 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV will be closed as a "keep deleted", I believe. ElinorD is apparently going through the history of SV's talk page, some of which is at User_talk:SlimVirgin/temp, and selectively restoring edits, which everyone who has bothered to participate in the DRV is agreeing is acceptable. This work has been in progress since 11 August 2007 ([24]), and appears to have restored stuff up to Feb 2007 ([25]) to date - at that rate of progress, it should be done in a few months, although Elinor has sped up again recently. As the history of SlimVirgin's talk pages is a complete mess, with things having been moved back and forth all over the place, selective deletions here there and everywhere, and some heavy use of oversight, nobody can really tell what is missing or selectively not-restored. Neıl 龱 09:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the combination of two cases

7) The combination of the JzG/Viridae case with the Cla68/Felonius Monk/SlimVirgin case should be undone and two separate cases restored, immediately. Clerks should take their best estimation of what goes where, and then notify all parties to move/split/duplicate their own contributions as needed to resolve matters further.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed: This combination was ill advised and hasty, there was not sufficient discussion prior to it. There is strong sentiment that keeping the cases combined confuses matters greatly as they are not really related, and in fact we have already seen confusion. Arbitrators, for whatever reason, have not spoken to explain or justify the combination (not that they HAVE to, mind you...) It is, at this time, still fairly clear what evidence goes where and still fairly clear which workshop principles/findings/remedies go where. As time goes on it will become increasingly difficult to split the cases and restore them. Therefore, split them immediately before it gets harder to do so. ++Lar: t/c 14:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly support this. Neıl 龱 14:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as it would increase both the clarity and the transparency of the process (which is beneficial to all parties), and better enable contributors to concentrate their minds on relevant matters without distraction. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My cynical take (as also expressed by others) is that the two were combined exactly for the reason of confusing the issues, so that in would be unreasonable to severly sanction folks who are party to this case. I would support separation, (and might even support a 'no action' closure of JzG/viridae). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption is that the combination was done with the best of intentions, even if it was ill-advised, and that there was no malice or confusion or obfuscation intended. I'm just saying that I feel it fairly clear now that it wasn't a good idea and should be reverted. ++Lar: t/c 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support, per my statement here. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. To be honest, I can see no good reason why they were merged in the first place. Also, support no action closure in JzG/Viridae per Rocksanddirt. dorftrottel (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, brother - it would almost make sense to split it into 4 or 5 separate cases since there is a lot of unrelated content. --B (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Draw a little Venn diagram and put all the issues and people involved in the first case in one circle and all the issues and people involved in the second case in another and at the intersection you will find why the Arbcom accepted these two cases and why they were combined. Here's a hint: his name begins with a Cla and ends with a 68. 96.15.107.52 (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I agree that the combination of the cases was a mistake, and may complicate remedies. When combined with the premature jump to an ArbCom case without an RfC/U, the combination of the cases also gives the strong impression (see the IP comment above) that the decision was predetermined or prejudiced towards certain claims; the endorsement of those claims would undermine dispute resolution processes on Wikipedia that have already been gamed by groups and should, if anything, be strengthened and respected to confront the abuses that led to this case. Remedies should endorse and enable respect for Wiki's dispute resolution processes and acknowledge the role and behavior expected of admins on Wiki; combining so many issues into one case seems to make a ruling in favor of Wiki's established dispute resolution and norms for admin behavior less likely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Sandy, exactly. I also wonder if anyone has even claimed that Cla68 acted inappropriately in the RfC with JzG (to the extent that was background to the case Viridae brought), and as a separate matter am uncomfortable with any findings or remedies that address all of these editors together when the link is so weak. Mackan79 (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No particular objections, but I think the proposal to unmerge may be based on a misconception about the nature of the case. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose you have some kind of unique insight into the true nature of this case that has escaped everybody else? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Like everybody else, however, I do have an opinion on the matter. The above comment by me is an accurate and faithful statement of my personal opinion, no more no less. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine, but perhaps you can elaborate on your personal opinion. Exactly how does everyone misunderstand the case, in your opinion. Cool Hand Luke 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, Tony? Do you think this is about Cla68? Because if not, JzG's incivility and Viridae's purported abuse have no intersection with the earlier case. Support unmerging. I think details are being buried by this combination. See Sandy and ip above. Cool Hand Luke 16:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated my opinion of this case. The primary problem to be addressed in my opinion is the importation into Wikipedia, and promotion of, external feuds and support of attempts to influence Wikipedia by outsiders. The Committee must decide whether the use of the wiki to conduct such warfare is in the interest of Wikipedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting; is my evidence chopped liver? There is nothing about what happened to me that has anything to do with anything off-Wiki; it directly relates to on-Wiki harassment and SlimVirgin's ownership of policy pages and personalization of issues. I think the only thing that can be said about off-Wiki involvement in the on-Wiki attacks on TimVickers, Marskell and me is that the off-Wiki website at least removed some of the personal attacks, while Wiki let them stand for months. It could also be said that the on-Wiki attacks on us might have continued to fly under the radar as "business as usual" on Wiki if SlimVirgin hadn't involved herself in unblocking Zeraeph and then continued the personalization after her unjustified attacks on TimVickers at Animal testing and her response to my example at the JzG RfC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandy for saying what had to be said. Your courage, along with Cla68's, in taking a stand to hold these intransigent editors accountable is truly inspiring. Even if this doesn't end in a good way, I think that many will feel a lot less intimidated when reporting abuse on their part. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't accept commendations for courage when fear is what I mostly feel; I know what it is to be targetted by a clique. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, if your problem is with supporting editors who use Wikipedia to further an off-Wikipedia feud, please consider what was happening here, or here or here, or here, and you may see why some editors felt the need to ask questions about the situation. The idea that you still want to send some kind of forceful message to those editors remains hard for me to see. Mackan79 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG, STRONG support. The merge NEVER should've happened in the first place. Wizardman 16:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. With the exception of the evidence page being long, there's nothing else to suggest that this was a wrong move. Contributions, even if exceptional, should not be used to overlook more troubling issues, like following very basic policy - WP:NPA among others, or the fact that administrators are expected to lead by example - conditionally doing so, while violating policy, is unacceptable. It was a good decision by the Committee - although it is not part of the same dispute, all of the principles (and many of the problems) are common for each party so can be dealt with together. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I disagree even with this modest statement. The JzG/V problem is mainly a civility dispute, while the FM case has some pretty good examples of administrative function abuse. I suppose they're all examples of admins behaving badly, but these misbehaviors are distinct and might plausibly have different remedies. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It's possible the remedies might be different for distinctly different misconduct, but even this is unlikely. Administrators are expected to lead by example. FM having greater misconduct (as you imply) than JzG does not legitimize JzG's misconduct, or change the absolute principle. You may be desysopped/sanctioned for repeated or egregious misconduct - and this does not have to involve admin function abuse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to offer one thought here and I do think it may be what some users were driving at above. If there is no legitimate chance that unmerging the cases would lead to a different outcome, then there is no reason to do it just for the sake of doing it. In other words, if the arbiters have already decided on a ruling and they are just waiting to make sure that no new bombshells are dropped on the evidence page, there is no need to split it just to split it. On the other hand, if the evidence is still being reviewed, I think splitting it is a really good idea because there are a lot of unrelated issues and not all that much overlap. It's really five different cases, rather than a unified disagreement. --B (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the proposed reasons - this has gotten horribly complicated. As far as I can see no-one has successfully demonstrated any real link between the two cases in terms of dispute, and so they should be separated since to keep them together only confuses issues and may lead to less decisive action. If ArbCom finds, as Ncmvocalist suggests, that there are commonalities in terms of the type of issues being faced, then the decisions for one can reflect that of the other. However, one wouldn't suggest that we combine all cases in a similar category in a short timespan into a single case, especially where the loci of dispute are different and there is little commonality in terms of evidence. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will perform a split if requested by the arbs, but I would like to state my opinion is that splitting them at this stage is unlikely to simplify things. Renaming this to "Omnibus 2008" might help. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two cases are fundamentally unrelated. JzG/Viridae is a straightforward case concerning JzG's civility (or lack of it) and potential misuse of admin tools by Viridae. The other case is wholly separate and a good deal more complex. Merging the two simply confuses matters more. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of oversight with SlimVirgin's edits

8) Here [26], SlimVirgin (SV) admits that some of her edits have been oversighted. GMaxwell then states that the oversighting was done by Jayjg [27], which SV does not deny but infers that it is a personal attack to bring it up [28]. Why would any of SV's edits need to be oversighted? If some were oversighted, was it Jayjg that did it? If so, how many and when? Furthermore, is it oversight policy that an editor's past edits can be oversighted upon request?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submitted question about oversight of SV's edits based on recent discussion on Wikien. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If it's a personal attack, it can not be oversighted. I had a death threat made on me, and it wasn't even oversighted. The way I'm infering this is that she made the attack herself. If she made an edit that had to be oversighted, why isn't she banned with everyone else who had to have an edit oversighted?Kwsn (Ni!) 02:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit curious. The conditions for oversighting edits are very restrictive. I'd like to hear SlimVirgin's take on this incident. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but from what SlimVirgin has told me, she's apparently not read this page.[29] You may need to ask her directly. Jehochman ^Talk 03:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[30][31]. Cla68 (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

8)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Motion to close without prejudice

It's my view that we need to accept that this process has derailed, and has very little chance to provide a net benefit, and is almost certain to harm the project. I strongly believe in blanking these pages without prejudice, and forcing at least a week's breathing space. It may well be the best course of action to pretend that this application for an arb case never happened. If you agree, please help by supporting this motion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Support - Privatemusings (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maybe inviting the parties to WP:NTWW (or a private conference call) to talk it out face-to-face would be more fruitful than proving the other guilty? Merzul (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph. It's obvious that this process is not going to be a net benefit to the encyclopedia, whatever its outcome. On the other hand, the festering issues which underly it are not going to magically disappear if we blank the pages. Dunno. MastCell ^Talk 02:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the worst outcome would be to ignore the issues at hand. This is clearly a huge issue streaming through more of the encyclopedia then we're seeing here so far. We have an opportunity in this RFAR to at least try to fix the many, many wrongdoings present. Dismissing this case would harm Wikipedia's reputation. Are both parties completely right in what they've done? Dismissing implies a yes to that answer, which I shudder at. Wizardman 02:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the outcome I see by making this go away is that it will come back about half a year down the road with new, even more vindictive rhetoric. This needs to be dealt with, because while the decision will probably hurt the encyclopedia, putting it off will DEFINITELY hurt the encyclopedia, and to a larger extent. Dr. e X treme 02:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some major issues here, which is why both were accepted (and merged presumably due to the direction this case is going in) - there's no basis for this request, particularly where you are not a party to this case. Reject. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The basis for the request is that Privatemusing cares deeply about the Wiki. Rationally speaking, the opposes here are irrefutable, and yet I feel Privatemusing is absolutely right. Of course the underlying issues need to be resolved, and I trust the committee will rule wisely on this, but the question is if maybe something outside the box would be more effective and graceful. Best wishes, Merzul (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case would not have been accepted if no other attempts (even outside of the box) had been made to resolve this issue. It is now in the final step of the dispute resolution process due to the failure to resolve the dispute in earlier steps (which includes any other means). Therefore, while the user who requested this may be concerned, there still is no basis for the request, particularly from a non-party. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I respect PM's desire to bring harmony to the wiki, but these are long-standing issues that must be resolved. This case is one which has potential to strike at the heart of the double standard that some editors feel exist. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PM, but don't think it would help. The underlying problems are far to entrenched. It's to bad really that in raymond's words it's become the 'Omnibus Admistorator Reform and Civility Patrol Act of 2008' --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple serious allegations of abuse of inappropriate conduct. Unfortunately, all of those are being tied up in one arbcom case, even though they are mostly separate and have little to do with each other. Closing this case and reopening five separate ones would probably be a good idea from the standpoint of not needing a scorecard to keep track of it all. But closing it, putting our fingers in our ears, and humming really loud is not a good idea. I'm not sure which of these would be the result of closing the case. --B (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
opppose - sort the case out, and exhonerate SV, FM and JzG William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Merzul. VoIP exchange may help avoid some of the shortcomings and possible fallacies of hypertext communication. dorftrottel (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Suspending this case will not make the underlying issues go away. If we go through an RFC on SlimVirgin like Cla68 originally planned, we'll still be back here in a few weeks. It's better to solve the problem sooner rather than later. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if we stop this now, what then? Without resolution, this is only going to cause more bad blood and cliquism. The only reason it's getting to be unworkable is because of the JzG case being merged in, which was a mistake, in my opinion, since it's going to make this case far more difficult to resolve. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which may or may not have played a part in the decision to merge the cases. dorftrottel (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm... well I think I'd be less disheartened about arb.s not thinking outside of the box, if there were any evidence of much thinking occurring within it! hey ho - absolutely no comment from any arb on the only proposed temporary injunction for 10 days. It really doesn't take long to type one word and four tildes, chaps, however you feel.... Privatemusings (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not that hard to sort. Previous ArbCom rulings have proven ineffective in the case of FeloniousMonk, so stronger options are worthy of examination by the Committee; and 1RR or civility parole would most likely lessen the issues with SlimVirgin's edit warring, tag teaming, unfounded accusations and personalization of issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG-Viridae case shelved

2) Since JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been 100% inactive for over a month, commencing a week before the case to which he and Viridae are parties was opened and merged to the existing case here, the case involving them is to be separated from this case and put on hold, to resume only if both are active at the same time and one requests it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed for basic fairness. GRBerry 21:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG has a history of disappearing as soon as strong criticism comes his way. Viridae ^Talk 22:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that, if he remains inactive we need no remedies regarding either of you; the only meaningful charge against you is that you conflict too often with him, and if he does nothing he'll do nothing wrong. So why not sideline this until it becomes a live issue again, if ever. GRBerry 00:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was active at his own site. user:Dorftrottel 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - it seems bizarre testing two separate, unrelated matters at the same RFAR. I'm also not fully convinced the matter would have reached ArbCom without the prior existence of this one. Orderinchaos 05:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If and when JzG gets involved again, the need for this can be reexamined. I'm not sure it was needed in the first place, though some manner of getting through the harm he's cause to the project to him is needed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG responded to this case before it was accepted (merged, whatever). This proposal makes it sound like he was blindsided by someone opening up an arbitration while he was on vacation ... but in reality, he was aware of it before he left. I doubt that a delay is going to make any difference - if JzG wanted to present evidence, he could. Delaying whatever decision the committee wants to make (which my guess is that it will be no sanctions or at most a warning in JzG's case anyway) doesn't change anything. --B (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and he did contribute some opinion and evidence to this case also. If he felt like he was about to be included and that retreat is the better part of valour, I actually think that shows a bit of the sort of actions that the RfC regarding his adminstrative actions was looking for. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If/when he resumes his disruptive activities on Wikipedia, he will argue that this case is "ancient history" and the concerns raised in the RfC and here will be dismissed out of hand. It appears to be a tactic he has used before (to the extent of claiming to have retired, and deleting his user page). DuncanHill (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was WP:AGF a policy or just humor? PouponOnToast (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The preponderance of evidence suggests Duncan is correct. Neıl 龱 13:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGF exists, but I see no policy called, WP:IGNOREALLEVIDENCE. SashaNein (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Projecting bad behavior forward, and then stating such as fact is assuming good faith? PouponOnToast (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AAGF. There's an essay somewhere which talks about how assuming good faith is only agreeable so long as the party you are dealing with is acting in good faith, and ast some point, good faith is used up. I can't find it. Maybe I imagined it, and need to write it (I'll call it Wikipedia:Don't assume good faith indefinitely, or something similar). Neıl 龱 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that the assumption of good faith should be discarded when you believe (via your propenderance of the evidence) that the other party is acting in bad faith, and at any point you believe the other party is acting in bad faith under this standard you should make that clear to any and all? Do you find your viewpoint has community consensus? Could you review the part about in WP:AGF about "Accusing others of bad faith?" I think you may have misunderstood the goal there. There is no need to accuse others of malice at any point. My understanding of how things worked around here is that we dealt with bad behaviors, not assuming that contributors were acting nefariously (by taking a break!)PouponOnToast (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I *am* assuming the assumption of good faith. Why would I bring up the fact that you appear to be failing to assume good faith if I didn't believe you were here to help the encyclopedia? If I thought your goal was to harm the encyclopedia, I would just ignore you. I'm trying to correct your behavior - it does not evidence the assumption of good faith. PouponOnToast (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a part of my comment below where I ascribed motives, unfairly, to JzG's absence. I would stand by the fact, though, that JzG's absence from Wikipedia obviously coincides with this case, whether it be to avoid scrutiny, to avoid stressful interactions, or otherwise, and that I believe he will return as and when the section of this case relating to his conduct is closed or shelved. If this were to happen every time someone's conduct was focussed upon in an Arbcom case, then no resolution would ever be possible. Neıl 龱 14:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PouponOnToast (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case is based on JzG's behaviour before he decided to vanish ~~to avoid scrutiny~~, so it doesn't matter whether he is here or not; he has already submitted his evidence, and knows the case is open. His activity on his own wiki shows he is still alive and capable of operating a computer, and is choosing not to participate on Wikipedia at the moment (a quick study of his contribution history shows he has never had such a break before, so Occam's Razor suggests his break is due to this RFArb). I would agree to postponing and seperating this, though, purely because merging the two wholly disparate cases was a bad idea in the first place. As and when JzG ~~inevitably~~ reappears ~~and returns to type~~, it can be re-opened. Neıl 龱 13:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think PouponOnToast is right that some comments here are assuming the worst of JzG's intentions. JzG has remarked in the past about trying to withdraw from highly stressful wiki interactions rather than following his instinct to fight, and it's plausible that his absence is such an effort to avoid disruption and drama. It's also plausible that it's a tactical move, but now that that possibility has been raised I think it's best not to assume that as fact until such time as he returns, and we can see if his behavior and statements align better with the tactical hypothesis than the minimal-disruption hypothesis. alanyst ^/talk/ 13:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that assuming tactics as the reason of Guy's absence instead of a simple desire to get away from a cause of stress is unfounded and unhelpful. Why not put the JzG/Vir case on a temporary halt? user:Dorftrottel 13:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I know that I in the RFC at least mused on the idea of a long wikibreak ("Will a long (months long) wikibreak help? Maybe.") Reviewing, I also see this suggested in the views by Jc37, FT2, FCYTravis, Annonymous Dissident, Random832, Walton, Dusti, and Henrik. It was a popular suggestion, and he may be responding to the suggestions raised there. It could be he is trying to destress by staying away for a long while, and if he comes back he'll be in much better shape, as he was in early 2006. I decline to make an assumption myself as to his reasons this time; that would be unhelpful speculation in the absence of evidence (as the only evidence we have is that he is absent). I do believe that as long as he is not active then neither his nor Viridae's behavior needs to be addressed by the committee. GRBerry 16:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment, I've got no interest or opinion on the JzG portion of the case: Delaying action on a dispute because of the voluntary absence of one party is a bad idea. Silence is not evidence of a mea culpa. Voluntary absence does not make an issue moot. Arbcom has acted in cases of absence, ignorance, and denial many times. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree with schmucky to an extent. The behavior that is under investigation already exists, and any remedies will be based on that past behavior. That said, if a real desire for a long break exists, then there is no rush (not that this case is rushing) to complete remedies. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea to me. On the other hand, if we're currently unable to consider any proposals or motions, p'raps my modest effort above could be re-visited... even at this stage I'm not sure it's not the best way forward! I would entreat all arbs to consider demonstrating their engagement with these issues with actions - create some subpages, ask some questions - even just a short 'geez this is complicated, and I'm still thinking about it' post would go a long way in my book! Either that, or just close the book - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moot JzG is editing again. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? One edit to declare a wikibreak of several months? That's not "editing again". Unless he has a sock account or something. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, guess I pulled up the wrong account for that. Either way, shelving the case is a bad idea, because if we let everyone who has an RFAR against them take a "wikibreak" and then shelve the case, then every user faced with an RFAR would do that just to dodge the bullet. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mooted by facts; Guy is active again. GRBerry 23:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Question from FT2

One question that seems important to check with all parties and anyone else:

It might be helpful to give some (simple) wiki-historic background on these matters (so to speak) and "how it reached where it is now", in addition to the usual discussion of the parties' conduct (how they have acted and its impact).

By that I mean, without setting out a fishing net or any kind of wild conspiracy-building, it might be useful to have a couple of comments on the extent to which this is about the conduct of specific individuals, and the extent (if any) to which the problematic conduct(s) are also driven by the playing out of some kind of underlying issue, dispute or division, such as groups, cliques, historic conflicts, or opposing agendas/viewpoints (if any).

I ask since this might be an important factor in assessing the conduct of the parties, in a fair and informed way, and against an appropriate context. Or it might not.

Comments (if any) on the evidence page please. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further thought: Where possible I'd encourage those giving evidence (on either "side") to ensure they also give consideration to good faith explanations, as necessary. Whilst we're ultimately looking at users' conduct and its impact here, not every problematic action will have been undertaken for a disruptive or hostile reason. Up-front request for a good quality, reasoned discussion. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Merzul about Off-Wiki Sites

My own interest in this case is that I wish, probably like Cla68 and Mackan79, for a more professional editing atmosphere. However, I am wondering if Cla's approach is the most appropriate. I have the following simple question.

What is the attraction of off-wiki forums for discussion about Wikipedia? Let me put it more concretely, what is lacking in our opportunities to criticize content, editor behaviour, and just about say whatever we want on Wiki? I would appreciate if Cla68 and Viridae explain what moved them to join an external site that has the reputation of "outing" and obviously is offensive to other Wikipedians.

Now, I don't buy the claims that Cla68 was actually threatening to "out" anyone, but I would appreciate a clear answer to the simple question: why do you want to be associated with a site that has such connotations? Merzul (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a member of wikien-l for yonks. It's useful for discussion but was perhaps more useful when the community was small and there were fewer pages for discussion actually on the wiki. There are a few other mailing lists related to Wikipedia.

Wikback, a recent experiment by Uninvited Company, enjoyed early popularity but seems to have tailed off in the past couple of months.

All the other forums of which I'm aware seem to have been set up by banned trolls and the like for the express purpose of attacking Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. It is to those latter forums, not to Wikien-l or wikback, that some editors seem to have turned in their search for material with which to harass other Wikipedians. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being what? That anyone who has ever posted to WR should be banned per guilt by association? dorftrottel (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because, on-wiki and in the off-wiki forums "blessed" by the WP in crowd, comments not to the liking of certain people get censored [32] [33] and might get the writer accused of stalking, harassment, etc., and threatened with a block or ban [34][35][36][37]. Is it surprising that people feel more like they can speak freely in outside "unauthorized" forums? *Dan T.* (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Ncmvocalist

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, evidence, [38]. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comeon...did you really feel threatened by that? I wonder why she made that comment...surely it wasn't out of the blue....what did you do to her?--MONGO 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as threats cannot be tolerated. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators expected to lead by example

7) Administrators are expected to lead by example, and act as role models for users in the community. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to observe the principles of Wikiquette by behaving in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Even if no misuse of administrative tools took place, administrators whose actions are inappropriate and disruptive risk being desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From 2 previous cases - combined both. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as worded. dorftrottel (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not hypocrisy to hold leaders to a higher standard. Dr. e X treme 18:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs the other "admins aren't expected to be perfect" boilerplate arbcom finding to be useful in context of an arbcom case. This isn't paper so no need to combine previous rulings. Linking "Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia" with an expectation of Wikiquette, is a large leap. The large gaping chasm between the two is why they are separate principle because in general, Wikiquette violations don't constitute anything close to "Sustained or serious disruptions" nor should they be inferred by overly broad and vindictive interpretation. --DHeyward (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are currently endeavours to adjust policy to reflect reality a bit closer than it currently does, e.g. paying tribute to the more regularly encountered combined phenomenon of an unwavering observance of WP:CIVIL by editors with a non-neutral stance. I for one think it's not a far stretch at all to recognise a seriously disruptive potential in 'simple', but 'diff-provenly' regular violations of Wikiquette by admins — whose job it is to guide and assist other editors wherever necessary and possible, and to set an example by not letting their personal opinions interfere with the neutrality of their judgement and actions. dorftrottel (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as even if being an admin is "no big deal," they were still in effect elected by the community and so means the community has certain expectations in them. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the core dilemma facing Wikipedia; if not, let's just forget any pretense of code of conduct on Wikipedia. We have numerous admins who consistently edit in controversial areas without violating AGF or CIVIL; they show how it's done, that it can be done, that it can be done well, and they don't start fires with newbies by biting, failing to AGF or being uncivil. They write articles; they don't show up in ArbCom cases because they're just out there doing what they should be doing. If Wiki can't or won't deal with abusive admins and enforce behavioral norms on Wiki, the good editors available to write content and deal with the legitimate trolls and vandals will continue to decline and problems will grow. Professional editing is possible and should be endorsed, or we should just all go home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not too happy with this. Admins are not expected to lead (by example or otherwise). (especially not the current crop :-P ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Know yourself

8) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard, I think. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, even though it may be difficult for all of us at times. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too sane. dorftrottel (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MeatBall:DefendEachOther

9) An administrator is expected to refrain from issuing blocks (or threatening to issue blocks) in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Modified slightly from Tango case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on this one, as if someone makes an obvious personal attack against an admin that no one could reasonable interpret not to be a personal attack, perhaps the admin should be able to block or threaten a block, but again when it is really obvious? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct outside Wikipedia

10) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From a previous case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but again, please note my link above about "however." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guilt by association

11) Mere membership by an editor in some external website that has members who have been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

From a recent proposed decision. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also input here. dorftrottel (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance

12) All editors are expected to comply with the rulings of the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

maybe but kinda dicely in a volenteer community. Not oppose or even not activly oppose would be closer.Geni 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

tbn) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Previous ArbCom rulings involving FeloniousMonk

1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been subject to several remedies from previous rulings by the arbitration committee. In the case of WebEx and Min Zhu, he was admonished not to use his administrative tools or give warnings in content disputes in which he is involved. He was warned in the case of Agapetos angel and was instructed to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes. In the case of ScienceApologist, he was counseled to consult with other administrators with respect to disruptive users and to cooperate with them in a collegial way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Straight-forward. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of bringing up two-year old issues? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They demonstrate a continuing, long-term pattern of inappropriate behaviour. This indicates that FeloniousMonk's recent actions are not an aberrance from the norm which could be put down to circumstance, rather that his behaviour has always been this way. Neıl 龱 08:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, some of us have been afraid to speak up before now (in fact, many still are); seeing that ArbCom didn't even enforce what was put in place in an earlier case isn't encouraging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, not all members of ArbCom would be alerted to years-old cases, due to the rotating system. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 03:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk

2) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([39]) ([40]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([41]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([42]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given (example).

2.1) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([43]) ([44]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([45]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([46]), and has made meritless accusations against other editors on several occasions ([47]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given (example).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Open to suggestions for further tweaking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your example of "unwilling to accept criticism" for "adminsitrative action" is a bit weak. His "action" was a warning, not a block or even a page protection. And he goes on to say in the same thread fruther down "I take your point". You seem to have a cherry picked one response and it should be stricken. This was the only evidence I checked since it was the only one direct linked but if the rest of it is just as poor, it should be deleted. --DHeyward (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening to use your admin actions is close enough as it can have a chilling effect, like a block. (It might've made more sense if you read the principles (as one should) before jumping to a finding, let alone selectively cherrypicking one part of it.) As for failing to accept criticism, I wasn't convinced that he did get the point if he says "The road runs both ways, good acts beget good acts. That wasn't his first CIVIL warning" before saying "but I take your point". It is a fundamental flaw in his administrative abilities to think that an editors misconduct legitimizes his poor-judgement as an admin. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the principles and found none that corresponded to this finding. Warning a user to cease a particular behavior or risk being blcoked is not a threat. This is obvious giving the standard warning templates (And why they aren't called "threat" templates). Nor is a warning that "you will be blocked" a use of admin tools as any editor can leave a warning that says the same thing. The "admin tool" part is only in play if the block is executed. Secondly, you seem to be trying to stretch his reaction to an editor as being unable to accept criticism from his peers. FM expressing displeasure at an editors behavior while at the same time acknowledging that another admins criticism is esesntially a valid viewpoint runs contrary to your proposed fact. In fact, it seems to be the exact opposite in this case. He acknowledeges the criticism of his peers despite an editors misconduct. --DHeyward (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't look hard enough then. Administrators are expected to observe, to a greater extent than editors, the relevant Wikiquette principles. They also should not use (or threaten to use) their tools in a dispute, or where incivility is directed at themselves. There is a massive difference between a warning (or even a good faith warning template) and how and what he actually said at that talk page - he effectively inflamed the dispute and made no apology for it. His philosophy that only "good acts beget good acts" (demonstrated through the pattern of his poor judgement) shows that his conduct is incompatible with what is expected of an admin of 3-4 years. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to read wat FM wrote. His philosophy isn't only "good acts beget good acts". He stated a what is a truism. He is basically saying "1 Equals 1" and you are interpreting that as he only believes "1 Equals 1" so he doesn't believe "2 equals 2". He basically said "If the other editor hadn't been incivil, I wouldn't have been incivil, but I understand your point that my being incivil was not appropriate." That's a pretty good acknowledgement and doesn't support your facts. The "threats" that you cite as principles and the "threats" of administrative action are not in the same ballpark. Threatening to use the tools to undelete a page so that it can further WP:BIO violations is a "threat" the way the policy was intended. --DHeyward (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ArbCom rulings involving SlimVirgin

3) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been subject to findings and remedies in previous rulings by the arbitration committee. In the case of Lyndon LaRouche 2, the Committee made a finding that she engaged in personal attacks, and she was cautioned not to make any personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation. In the case of Israeli apartheid, she was admonished not to use her administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. She was also reminded in that case to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no ArbCom finding that SlimVirgin misused the admin tools during the Israeli Apartheid situation. The only remedy that mentions her name in that case and orders a specific action is, "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." [48] Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Straight-forward. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy in question reads as "All involved administrators are admonished not use their administrative tools without prior discussion and consensus, and to avoid using them so as to continue an editing dispute. Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." - ~~I'm not familiar with the case, but it appears that SV is included among "all involved administrators".~~ As far as I can tell, SV did not at any time protect or unprotect the page or move the page while it was under move protection. Some clarification would be helpful. --Random832 (contribs) 16:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She became an involved admin when she moved the page (at 22:12 on 4 July 2006). She was therefore subject to the whole remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But saying she was admonished in regards to her use of the administrative tools is disingenuous if there was no allegation that she, personally, had misused the tools in that case. --B (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She was an involved administrator, so she was admonished - it is irrelevant that others were admonished too. Her name was also specified in the second line (like the others involved). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if there was no finding or even an allegation that she did anything wrong, saying she was admonished is silly. It's kinda like when our secretary reminds the whole company to submit their timecards at the end of the pay period. Yes, I, like everyone else, got the reminder. But my boss isn't going to lord it over me on my performance review that the secretary had to admonish me about my timecard. Or, at least, if he does, then my name is Dilbert. This isn't a meaningful finding of fact unless she had actually done something to deserve the warning. My big issue here is that there are legitimate concerns about FM's use of the tools and, according to your claims which I am not yet prepared to offer an opinion on one way or the other, SV's conduct. If those legitimate concerns get lost amongst grandstanding over minor things, then the arbitration committee is less likely to arrive at an appropriate decision. This isn't a legal pleading or a contract negotiation where you might throw a ton of paint on the wall planning to negotiate away a lot of it and hoping that the little bit you care about is going to stick. If any of it has the appearance of a personal grudge or a smear campaign, the arbiters might decide to ignore the lot of it. --B (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your own opinion (whatever it is) - but it will not change the clear fact that she was among 5 administrators admonished for poor judgement - she should not have got involved. If you feel there is some error in the case, then like every other editor, you would need to request for an amendment or clarification, but I doubt the arbitrators are going to find any differently on this point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin

4) SlimVirgin has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([49]); threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([50]).

4.1) SlimVirgin has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using her administrative tools [51], and by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([52]); threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([53]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Open to suggestions for further tweaking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Repeated" poor judgment with respect to the administrative tools is not currently demonstrated in the evidence. Of your two examples, the WP:V protection warring is inappropriate, but somewhat stale if (and only if) it was an isolated incident. (It happened in July 2007, but if there are other similar incidents, it is obviously an issue.) As for the Category talk:Animal rights activists thing, I'm scratching my head on that one. She moved the discussion of Category talk:Animal rights activists to Category talk:Animal rights movement (list), then deleted the latter. She copied and pasted the content to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal rights so the discussion was able to continue. There's an obvious reason for centralizing the discussion on a project page rather than having it potentially on multiple cat talk pages, so I have no problem with her intentions there. Moving/deleting the page was a rather bad idea for GFDL reasons - the better alternative would have been to copy/paste it with an edit summary crediting the authors, then blank the original discussion. But this is more an incorrect use from a technical standpoint than it is an intentional abuse. It's important to differentiate between someone abusing the tools and making an incorrect decision because they don't have an engineering or law degree. --B (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the finding is about her (SV's) judgement as an administrator (with respect to being subject to a previous remedy, continuing with incivility and most importantly - principle 7) - it may need to be worded better though. I haven't gone into her use of admin tools like for FM, due to the current lack of evidence on it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG

5) JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([54]) and by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([55]) ([56]). He has also engaged in unprofessional commentary ([57]). After this case opened, JzG took a break from editing on Wikipedia for 6 weeks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; ~~I'm assuming he's a party of this case until/unless ArbCom specify otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)~~ Note modification. Further tweaking to be done. 11:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. On the whole, JzG's actions have been positive. An occasional lapse needs to be balanced against the body of good work, and the high level of challenging situations undertaken. Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proposal of fact, not of opinion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scream louder. That will surely convince us. This little anti-JzG cabal needs to be disbanded. Jehochman ^Talk 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks - I don't use your style. Also, assume good faith and kindly desist from associating uninvolved editors who are making proposals on the case (i.e. me in particular) as part of an 'anti-JzG cabal' - it's both inaccurate and incivil. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is far far far more than an occasional lapse. JzG has consistently misused his admin tools, bitten newbies, failed to assume good faith and been overwhelmingly uncivil. The evidence (which is not complete) that I presented has thus far shown 160 seperate incidents, mostly over the last year or so. Viridae ^Talk 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with this. Uncivil at times, yes yes, but screw that, so to speak. dorftrottel (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

FeloniousMonk desysopped

1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee, upon demonstrating that he can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.

1.1) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely.

1.2) FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; prefer 1.1 Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support either The use of admin tools in dispute isn't a good thing to start with, but continuing to do so after being told by arbcom not to? Come on here. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous.--MONGO 23:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Supported by principles, evidence or finding of fact. --DHeyward (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supported by: principles ([58] and [59]/[60]), evidence ([61] and [62]) and findings of fact ([63] and [64]). Your repetition of this statement for the subsequent proposed remedies in this section appears to be deliberately disingenuous; perhaps explaining why you feel the remedy does not match the findings would be more appropriate than simply making a blunt statement. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about this on a personal level, but I think there's evidence he's misused the administrative tools and has lost the confidence of the community, so I would support this proposal. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commented out for now. Even after looking through B's evidence, I can't support this remedy. Maybe it's because I share FM's pro science stance, but I think he made mostly acceptable decisions where he couldn't have gone by the book because life in the trenches differs from many high hopes. I'd even roundly reject this remedy, if FeloniusMonk could bring himself to re-examining the evidence and maybe do as Cla68 did here. dorftrottel (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so are you saying that people should ignore WP:CONSENSUS and WP:ENC when they feel like they're not getting their own way? "In the trenches" seems like a strange metaphor, since WP should not be a WP:BATTLEGROUND; if you have to go against policy in order to fulfil your objectives, you need to seriously stop and think about what you're doing. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but sometimes people should do the exact opposite. But ok, I'll look through the presented evidence once more for instances where IAR was not a good option and where, like you allege has happened, FeloniusMonk went both against consensus and against the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. dorftrottel (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thought it was you who alleged that these policies had been breached, since you linked them as high hopes where he shouldn't have gone by the book. I haven't had enough free time to completely examine all the evidence against FM yet, so I wouldn't know whether the evidence does specifically support violations of those policies. I do disagree with over-liberal use of WP:IAR, however, which is what I was hoping to communicate. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did. With the 'high hopes' policy links, I just tried to illustrate my own (and many other users') experience that working in mainspace (='the trenches', which come to think of it is indeed a questionable metaphor) is often less than ideal, because of the human nature. dorftrottel (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Either SandyGeorgia, Cla68, and others have clearly outlined FeloniousMonk's abuse of the tools and administrator status in general. The problem here is that the editor bullies those he disagrees with and uses his status to make threats as a means of preventing normal editors from complaining. His use of the tools in warping the dispute resolution process is also very alarming. The editor has been warned before, yet continues to behave in the same manner. Regretfully, this editor can no longer be trusted with the tools. If Tango can be deadminned for his history of bad blocking practice and use of tools, the same must apply here. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't familiar with this user before, but SandyGeorgia and B have outlined tons of abuse. This is quite honestly a modest remedy under the circumstances. Cool Hand Luke 04:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but there needs to be a version that stops after "He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee". As much as I believe that desysopping is obviously correct in this case and that a failure to do so would make about as much sense as the infamous "clown" proposal, not permitting an RFA (or requiring conditions for an RFA) is a bad thing. The community should always be free to express via an RFA its disapproval with a decision to desysop or its forgiveness of the former admin. --B (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with B, and did not notice the apparent oversight. Would anyone be opposed if I changed it? Cool Hand Luke 02:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly done. dorftrottel (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support either, because previous ArbCom rulings were ineffective to stop the behavior, and although FM has had almost a year to address the things he said about fellow admins Marskell and TimVickers, to my knowledge, he has not done so or acknowledged anything wrong in his approach to some of Wiki's finest editors. Considering how he addressed fellow highly respected admins and top content contributors, unjustly accusing them of the same editing behavior he was engaged in, I see little hope for self-awareness or that he will treat less well known editors fairly or that any other sanctions or rulings will work. Endorsement of his behavior may give the wrong impression to other editors that edit in the same areas as FM, extending the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support either. The evidence is simply overwhelming. FeloniousMonk has thoroughly proven that he is unfit to hold a position of trust in this project, and that his continued adminship would be a net loss extending far beyond his immediate vicinity, by assisting in the formation of a negative editing atmosphere. Would also support the version User:B suggested: FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee. — In light of the massive evidence of misconduct on several levels, I consider the choice to be made here not one between 'desysop vs not desysop', but rather between 'desysop vs desysop and ban'. dorftrottel (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1 or 1.2, not 1.1. So far as I can see, it is not asserted that there is additional private evidence presented to the committee to merit removing future reconsideration from the community. I think the community would be foolish to consider this in the near future, but in a few years, who knows. GRBerry 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1 or 1.2, not 1.1. He has used admin. tools once or maybe a few times to enforce his POV, which is sufficient grounds to desysop, but 1.1 would only be justified if he has done this repeatedly. Bwrs (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support either The evidence shows that FeloniousMonk is unfit as an admin, and should probably never be made admin again since he has shown to be unable to lead by example. --Zero g (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support any of them (though 1.2 is preferred). giggy _(:O) 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1 or 1.2, not 1.1. The chilling effect factor and his behaviour over time is not what we expect of an administrator. However 1.1 would take it well beyond the scope of previous decisions for behaviour which is within the scope of the findings of fact in those decisions. Orderinchaos 19:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the current block of Dragon695 for simply disagreeing with him is enough to warrant desysopping on its own. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Admin shows poor judgment, a tendency to bully rather than discuss and a general lack of insight/contrition.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support any of the above, especially 1.1, based on today's incident; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dragon695 blocked (permanent link) I am new to the controversy around this admin, but seeing this incident on ANI today, then reading the evidence page material about this person, I have no confidence he can ever be trusted to act within the requirements of our policies for administrators. Based on that evidence page, I also harbour concerns he should even be editing here at all without a very short leash (some sort of probation/parole). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. If there was any doubt before, the Dragon695 block cinches it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1.1 after today's wholly inappropriate block. Also, since it seems to matter these days, I am neither a current nor former member of Wikipedia Review. ATren (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I endorsed this remedy weeks ago). What can I add at this juncture? Six weeks ago, I presented FM's actions as the type of admin abuse that is the core issue that ArbCom should be dealing with in this case. Weeks later, I've seen no on-Wiki evidence of a retraction or amends made to Tim Vickers or Marskell for the accusations leveled at them after FM had been counselled by ArbCom regarding his interaction with fellow admins, while we have seen an ArbCom investigation of Orangemarlin, who edited similar articles with FM for a very long time, and may have viewed FM's on-Wiki behavior as a model. I encourage ArbCom to show leadership in upholding Wiki's core principles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support, especially given his latest abuse of tools. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's incident clinches it. Desysop. Then start a thorough investigation into whether he has any socks... (there is substantial circumstantial evidence of that, alleged by some to be as good or better than the MM/SH evidence although I haven't reviewed it in detail) and then block those socks. ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was on the fence about this for a long time, but after FM's block this is obviously needed. Wizardman 16:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - mainly per this - like Wizardman above. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This has gone on for far too many months. SashaNein (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1.2. If FM gets the bit back at a later date and re-commences the shenanigans, then 1.1 becomes more viable. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1.2.; see no need for 1.1. In my opinion, that would apply if FeloniousMonk was desysopped, regained adminship, and was desysopped again. Acalamari 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk placed on civility parole

2) FeloniousMonk is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, God, no. Civiltity parole may be theoretically appealing, but in practice it. Does. Not. Work. The only thing it accomplishes is turning WP:AE into a giant mudpit. MastCell ^Talk 17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Mast sadly. A lot of times it's next to impossible to enforce as well. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. CP has never worked, in my experience, and causes incredible amounts of work and drama at WP:AE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of civility parole in general. More a fan of folks moderating their own behavior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Rocksanddirt said is my exact opinion. Dunno if it'll help, and the whole concept has always seemed kinda odd to me. Wizardman 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop#Civility_remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Supported by principles, evidence or finding of fact. --DHeyward (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ineffective remedy, given the editor's clear gaming of the dispute resolution process. Also, likely any block will be undone by his numerous supporters. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I see no need for this. Wizardman 16:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin desysopped

3) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. She may reapply via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee, but must demonstrate that she can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.

3.1) SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. She may reapply via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Prefer 3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The evidence provided by Mackan79 and the attacks on Shii were completely uncalled for. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous.--MONGO 02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Neıl 龱 07:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's ridiculous and providing no reason for saying such just sounds pointy and makes your opinion sound worse. that's how I'm seeing it anyway. Wizardman 00:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Don't support this~~ I agree with lots of the evidence against SlimVirgin, and provided more myself. Little of the evidence seems to be about sysop tools. Remedies should be relevant to the principles and findings of fact, which should be related to the evidence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23 May 2008

Easy come easy go If adminship is no big deal than I could support this remedy based on the evidence presented. If it is unacceptable to remove the admin bit because adminship is a big deal, then we need to stop saying adminship is no big deal. If it is unacceptable because SlimVirgin could not successfully go through a new RfA then it is because RfA is broken. SlimVirgin, as a non-admin, could use her significant clout and persuasion to bring about necessary reform of RfA. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed principle 7 in forming that comment - it is one of the most important principles in relation to this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per SchmuckyTheCat. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nwwaew is agreeing with my statement that is now stricken, not my revised and updated rationale. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Not Supported by principles, evidence or finding of fact. --DHeyward (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The issue with SV isn't directly abusing admin tools, but does include a history of pursuing all-out battles against other editors, including false and damaging personal attacks against new and long-term editors. Unlike with JzG or Mongo, these aren't the kinds of insults where you can get a thicker skin, but rather where your entire participation is being systematically undermined, whether in a particular dispute or through larger areas of the project. Of course you could make a case for where getting rid of trolls is necessary, but 1. SV often doesn't make an accurate case, 2. her attacks have often been shown false, and 3. she does it in areas including animal rights and against long-term editors where the case couldn't possibly be made. Until a bizarre recent event, the only two times I had been blocked on Wikipedia were where SV had followed me with friends to an obscure article she had never edited, reverted many times without responding or reading the material, and misrepresented my edits to see me blocked (points 2 and 3 here). SV has never explained or apologized for doing this. Despite this, it was then following a comment having nothing to do with SV (though agreeing with a position she had taken) that she first placed two identical sections on my talk page and an article talk page entitled "Mackan's stalking", and then refused to remove either (point 2 here). It was then shortly after that SV falsely accused me of wikistalking her to New antisemitism -- fully after I had been editing the page for two months, after an initial mediation in which the mediator SlimVirgin chose described my contributions as "sterling," but SV disappeared -- in then attempting to exclude User:G-Dett and myself from a second mediation (point 4 here). SV has not responded to any of this evidence. The point is, these statements have not just been poorly considered, but have in their entirety been part of a sustained pattern of false character attacks that should have no place on Wikipedia; not just because they are damaging, but because they are clearly and demonstrably without basis and false. In this case, SV accuses Cla68 of "wikistalking," "efforts to humiliate," and "prolonged attempts to make the project a toxic place for others," at the same time as complaining that he does not assume her good faith. Whether or not she sees the discrepancy, and without regard to her intent, the fact is that SV has made the project toxic for a number of others, while it's entirely unclear whether an ArbCom endorsement would lead her back to these same approaches. I'm personally neutral about desysopping, because I've come to accept these events over time, I'm likely too close to the situation, and it's possible Wikipedia should stick to neutral types of findings about specific policy violations (an approach I generally prefer); on the other hand, I think there is significant evidence to support the remedy. Mackan79 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no evidence that SlimVirgin has used her tools in such an inappropriate way to merit a desysopping. I’ve read the evidence page, and there’s a few instances from a long time ago – but no pattern of abuse (far from it in fact) that suggests such a serious remedy is called for. Without commenting on the civility aspect in this particular thread, there are remedies available to deal with that, removing admin status doesn’t do anything. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See pprinciple 7. Also, I didn't base poor use of admin tools as the sole criterion (if at all) for proposing this remedy. But btw, which remedies were you referring to? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to remedy 4 below, but I'm unconvinced that even that's needed - see my comment down there. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that others are not coming to my conclusion, which I rambled endlessly about here. I firmly believe that SlimVirgin has shown a pattern of misusing administrator tools, as shown by Cla68's and my evidence. I believe that, even if she were wonderfully kind and thoughtful, she has made so many poor decisions with administrator tools that desysopping her would be a net benefit to the project. Her incivility only compounds the problem. I know this sounds excessively harsh to some of you, but I can only tell you what I see, and reading Cla68's evidence section on questionable use of admin tools, I see an administrator who isn't following the rules and expectations of the community. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, I think people are waiting to see how things develop. I agree in principle with you, but there is no need to rush to judgement. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I want to give her the chance to react to the presented evidence before making a premature judgement call. My particular focus is on how each of the three (FM, SV, JzG) will react to this very smart move by Cla68. Simple acknowledgement and a short, but honest 'sorry' can go a long way. I sure hope the others will follow his example. Until then, I'm postponing my judgement. dorftrottel (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have read SandyGeorgia's and Cla68's evidence and find it very compelling, especially the former. At this point, I must regretfully endorse this sanction. This is a tough one since it appears that SlimVirgin gets many of her friends to do her dirty work, so direct abuse of the tools is not always apparent. What is clear is a pattern of SlimVirgin abusing NPA and STALK as a means to silence and intimidate her opponents. When SandyGeorgia says that normal editors feel afraid to speak up, fearing the wrath of SlimVirgin's clique, I can not help but agree. These tactics are clearly used to game the system and promote her own agenda, independent of the good of the project. In evidence, it was also shown that she often used her tools in edit warring on policy pages, which is possibly the worst place to edit war. I think that the constant unfounded claims of stalking, the unnecessary drama her intervention often causes, the abuse of minor edits, using the tools to edit war on policy pages against consensus, and her controversial unblocks without prior consensus are grounds for revoking her administrative tools. I am not optimistic that this will lead to much reform alone, since it is clear that other administrators act as her proxy. Clear sanctions must be put in place to deal with those who do proxy administrative tasks on her behalf. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The massive uncalled-for and unuseful personalisation and assumption of bad faith (You seem to be trying to create a lot of unnecessary work for me here, and for yourself., No more trying to force me to respond to you., Kelly seems to be trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me.) in the situation with User:Kelly, who does outstanding, direly needed work in a difficult area and of course always acts politely and in good faith is the final straw. Similar as with FeloniousMonk above, I'm now swinging between 'desysop vs desysop and temporary ban' rather than 'desysop vs not desysop'. I'll post my more in-depth reasoning here shortly. dorftrottel (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very dumb now because of Alecmcconroy's excellent points. He summarised what I wager many feel (I know I do). To summarise my own position, one that I couldn't for the life of me have formulated before reading Alec's posting: I agree close to 99% of the time with SlimVirgin's ideas about mainspace and policies. OTOH, I sumultaneously believe that she far too often carries it to excess; the main point being that the end does clearly not justify all means: In SlimVirgin's case, it sometimes perverts her own honorable goals. While it is very important to have intellectuals like her around, who do not shy away from occasionally being proactive and fighting for what they —justifiedly!— see as important and as the right thing for the project, too great a proportion of her contribs are far too aggressive and alienating not only to the 'target audience' of trolls, stalkers and what I like to call idiots but also to reasonable editors who perceive the atmosphere she (inadvertently? that's maybe the big question) creates as poisoneous for positive and happy work and collaboration on the project. I still believe that desysopping her would send the strongest message, and since she doesn't exactly excell through busy work on backlogs, the cost of desysopping her is minimal compared to the benefits. Failing that, a clear and strong warning according to Alecmcconroy's suggestions is definitely warranted. I'm sure she can improve her contribs a lot, but not if she insists on the correctness of her behaviour. Let's not forget that what she did e.g. in Cla68's and also Grace Note's RfAs is unbecoming of an admin (or infact any editor) and even more importantly completely unsuitable as a means to the end of creating and maintaining an atmosphere of positive collaboration. Indeed, she did it either out true belief and out of ignorance of that implicit consequence — or she did it deliberately, so as to stifle open discussion. Still, any comment of hers about her motivations and any acknowledgement if only of the understandability of parts of the considerable criticism that has been directed against some of her behaviour for years by many different people (and not all of it masterminded by Judd Bagley et.al). She must be decidedly warned against continuing some aspects of her behaviour. If it is determined that the best warning would be to desysop her, so be it. user:Everyme 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping will achieve nothing here. A ban is preferable. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Removed comments by sockpuppet of indef blocked user. dorftrottel (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping note: NoPointofView's only two edits are to this Workshop page. [65] Yechiel (Shalom) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I wasn't sure about this at first, but after the whole Kelly fiasco I see no alternative other than this that will be effective. Wizardman 18:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I happen to find the evidence of dubious use of admin tools by SlimVirgin quite convincing. But even editors who aren't entirely swayed by the evidence should recognize that a long string of incidents of various importance have badly eroded the level of trust the community has in SlimVirgin's responsible use of admin tools (and, yes, admin "status" which does exist even though we wish it did not). I think this is of central importance: just as in cases of conflict of interest, appearance of abuse is for all practical purposes as damaging to the project as actual abuse and clearly SlimVirgin has repeatedly placed herself in awkward positions which, at the very least, seem inappropriate. She has also often displayed the bunker mentality which leads to overreaction, dubious claims of stalking, use of admin tools in contexts where she's not an univolved admin and so on. I think her desysopping would be a net gain for the project. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SV has not been very active of late, so the number of abuses of late is limited. Her block log has only 50 actions since 2 July 2007. Her protection log has only 50 actions since 31 July 2007, including her own userspace. She is not significantly using her tools to benefit the project, has a pattern of using them abusively, and there is clear evidence that her possession of the tools even if unused is detrimental to the project. GRBerry 18:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support The evidence shows a long history of disruptive behavior. --Zero g (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, agree wit GRBerry. I think something similar to option 1.2 at the FM remedy above should be adopted here too (one that ends at "usual means or by appeal to the Committee". giggy _(:O) 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 3.1, largely on the basis of SandyGeorgia's evidence, although I share the concerns of others that admin actions are only part of the problem here and stopping those will not fix the wider problem. But there's been sufficient abuse of admin tools that it is warranted, and I agree pretty much entirely with Pascal's reasoning above. Orderinchaos 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - SV is a controversialist, an infighter, and a factionalist who has not been improved by power. If the rule of law on Wikipedia is greater than the rule of inertia, she will be desysopped. The fact that I hesitate to speak out on this matter for fear of becoming an offial "enemy" of her small group just shows how urgently this needs to be done. I have never interacted with SV - I have only seen how she interacts with others. Something needs to be done. Mr. IP (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-on. user:Everyme 17:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for the reasons of Pascal, Mr. IP, and others. SV's staying on as an admin is clearly controversial, and it seems reasonable to, while acknowledging all the good things she does do, to respectfully ask that if she wants to keep using admin tools, she stand again for an RFA to see if she still has the confidence of the community. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Such a ridiculously long history regarding this user's actions that it needed to be done years ago. Even now, despite the mounds of evidence, I severely doubt any action will be taken once again. Desysoping SlimVirgin would be a good first step in repairing this broken encyclopedia. SashaNein (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am convinced that the evidence is clear: SlimVirgin is far more attached to various causes, both political and personal, than she is to the encyclopedia. I am convinced that her behavior in this regard is profoundly detrimental to the encyclopedia. I am unconvinced that desysopping SlimVirgin will in any way alter her behavior. Moreover, as others have noted repeatedly, it is almost always those in her orbit who abuse their tools, rather than SV herself. No answers seem to help here; desysopping her will codify the community's disapproval of SV's behavior, but will not stop it. Milder remedies will result in more of the same. Perhaps, as Moreschi suggested, the only recourse is a ban. But there is no bannable material in the evidence, in my opinion. I am very glad that I am not a member of ArbCom, since they cannot win in this case. Or perhaps they can, simply by unanimously agreeing/stating that her behavior is profoundly detrimental to the encyclopedia. Clarity is good. Even if nothing else comes of this, clarity is good. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 14:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Her use of the tools has been such that I feel she should go through RfA again and face community scrutiny if she wants to remain an admin. It's just not acceptable to behave so questionably and controversially for so long and yet remain an admin indefinitely. Everyking (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin placed on civility parole

4) SlimVirgin is subject to an editing restriction for six months to one year. Should she make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, she may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any blocks made on SlimVirgin will no doubt be swiftly undone by one or another of her colleagues, leading to potential wheel-warring and further dramatics. Something different needs to be put in place to prevent the "uninvolved administrator" being pilloried by a minority. I would suggest some form of system where if a questionable edit is made, an arbitrator determines whether the restriction has been broached. It's not something that has been done before, but a standard approach to editing restrictions will lead to greater work for Arbcom in the longer term due to the strong likelihood of SlimVirgin being unblocked against consensus. Additionally, I would suggest her sysop rights be removed and only restored following a successful RFA - administrators must have the confidence of the community. Neıl 龱 12:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone over SlimVirgin diffs yet beyond my comments above, so I'm not endorsing anything here ... but I would point out that since the committee can always reverse itself on an appeal, administrative privileges can ALWAYS be restored by appeal to the committee whether that is spelled out in the remedy or not. --B (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I excluded "the usual means" but I'll add it in. Re: wheelwarring etc., the usual sort of rules apply - I've spelled them out in the enforcement section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. As far as I can tell, civility parole does not work, but is counterproductive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No basis for this unless of course one combs through 60,000+ edits and finds that one out of every thousand(!) and uses these outrageously few "examples" of incivility to then impose some sort of sanction on someone who (as if anyone is after they deal with so many time wasters and edit sometimes difficult subject material) is not absolutely perfect in every way.--MONGO 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes are fine, as long as you (show that you) are willing and able to learn from them, and avoid making them again. There was no explanation, apology, acknowledgement or any other sign/evidence to support the fact that she has or will. Where a consistent pattern of poor judgement emerges, particularly for an editor/admin of 4 or so years, signals the need for a remedy with the same intended effect as civility parole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needle in a haystack based remedies are remedies of nothing since no problem exists in a manner which is big enough to warrant any such remedy.--MONGO 14:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several people (including myself) disagree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again...I am of the thinking that, no admin is ever expected to be perfect...that Slim, FM and JzG have been admins for a long time, that they are very active admins and that they all oftentimes edit controvery ridden subject matter and deal with some pretty bad policy violators in the process. This is a different situation than Tango, whose percentage of misaplication of tools and position were far greater by a long shot. Before I was desysoped long ago, I had done over 4,000 administrative functions...and my "mistake" or misapplication percentage was extremely low. We can't desysop/sanction people who err in such a low percentage...to do so would be to tell them that they aren't allowed to be human. Furthermore, I simply do not see Slim being anything other than strong in her stance on certain issues. That some might feel she has been incivil is a bit of overkill and hypersensitivity in my opinion.--MONGO 15:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over the evidence presented by Cla68 of Slim's alledged incivilities, many of those examples are pretty regular responses by any editor to certain matters...in fact, I see few real examples at all that would indicate any inciviity issue. These diffs are far less than the one in a thousand (out of her 60,000+ edits) that I alluded to above. We can't sanction anyone for incivility if there are so few examples spread out over such a long time frame and when the contributor has dealt with so many timewasters in so many controversial areas. Based on such miniscule percentages and what are very arguably not very good examples of any gross incivility at all, if we were to sanction SlimVirgin, we might as well sanction almost every editor out there with more than a few hundred edits.--MONGO 16:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she cannot comply with policy as a result of the number of her edits or what she has to deal with, or cannot handle the self-imposed pressure then it emphasizes the need for her to step down as an administrator. The community and/or the Committee, do not look at things based on percentage - and you should've understood that at the conclusion of your case. And I think you fail to understand the importance placed on the admin role, and the expectations that come with it. A few mistakes are compatible, but this is not merely mistakes. It's a consistent pattern (failing to live up to these expectations). Civility is not optional, as principle 7 emphasizes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do know that percentages did not come into play in my case. But we should not and really cannot expect perfection, especially from those that have been involved in so many areas where robust rhetoric is more normative due to the controversial nature of the subject matter. I certaintly do have high expectations for administrators, but I do not expect them to be perfect nor do I feel that extremely active admins should be sanctioned especially when we are basing proposed sanctions on "examples" of incivility that are hardly incivil at all. If we're going to go around cherry picking evidence just to "get someone", then we're heading down the wrong road. So many of the examples cited are simply not very convincing that there is a problem here.--MONGO 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the remedy above, there's little evidence supporting placing SV on an editing restriction. She's been upset when she's perceived people are attacking her, but stating that people are attacking her does not turn it into a personal attack. I find very little incivility coming from her in fact - far less than many other admins on the site. Not sure it's right singling her out for extremely minor infringments, if any at all. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a bit of stretch; some clear and very harsh personal attacks were made even earlier this year (Feb or March off memory against Markell), and would not be expected of a reasonable administrator (or even an editor), and is just part of a pattern of incivility. Of course this case is limited to the parties, but emphasizes the need for administrators to refrain from engaging in unacceptable conduct - particularly where they are expected to lead by example. Mistakes are ok, but they need to actually be mistakes - you apologize for the damage you've done (if you have or if someone was upset by it), and learn from them. Not just engaging in it again later, knowing that you are expected to lead by example. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm intrigued to what extent you've considered the evidence, Ryan. The incidents I list under personal attacks aren't ones where she could have perceived herself as being attacked, but rather where she was specifically targeting others, often with the help of Crum375.[66] Of course the problem isn't foul language, but again that she goes on personal campaigns against other editors to get her way, along with the several other issues raised. The fact remains Cla68 didn't bring this to ArbCom, and with an RfC it may not have needed a case, but if ArbCom wants to resolve the issue I hope it will consider the more active role it's taking compared to other situations. Mackan79 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a radical proposal (scroll down) which I don't seriously expect the Committee to consider but which is nonetheless worthy of passing thought, that SlimVirgin be forbidden to use specific words such as "harassing", "stalking", "toxic", "poison", etc. to describe her interactions with other users. This would quantify both the problem and the possible solution, but it would be instruction creep, so don't actually enforce it. But I think it shows what Cla68 is trying to prove. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am almost certain that it will be impossible to enforce this, given the sheer number of proxy administrators who will revert any block the instant it happens. It didn't work for BC, it will not work for SlimVirgin. Please also note that her bad behavior goes way beyond the scope of civility. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse~~ a civility parole that addresses the frequent false charges of personal attacks, wikistalking, harassment, etc. and 1RR restriction, but written in a way that strictly defines "uninvolved admins", to deal with the long-standing concerns about group behaviors and meatpuppetry. There is, IMO, clear evidence of group behavior in play here, so ArbCom may attempt to define involved admins for case enforcement and 1RR issues. And something needs to be done about ownership issues and editwarring on policy pages; all of us should be able to show up to work on policy pages without charges of wikistalking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the exact behaviors that led to these problems continue today (failure to assume good faith and personalization of issues), even while under ArbCom scrutiny, I reluctantly conclude that SlimVirgin hasn't evidenced an awareness of the issues and problems and stronger measures might be warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something needs to be done, that much is evident. Since a large proportion of SlimVirgin's admin actions are related to her various conflicts, I'd endorse desysopping, as it would quite effectively drive the message home without much need for further monitoring, whence without the danger of further accusations of wikistalking etcpp. If this is adopted, particular focus must be on tag-team edit-warring with Crum375, and inappropriate page protections. dorftrottel (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this is perhaps the most crucial thing, even though SV is generally not overtly uncivil. We need some mechanism to restrain her from mistreating other contributors, and I'm hesitant to support an outright ban, so this seems like the best approach. Everyking (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn

JzG placed on civility parole

6) JzG is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm assuming he's a party of this case until/unless ArbCom specify otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. As far as I can tell, civility parole does not work, but is counterproductive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Supported by principles, evidence or finding of fact. --DHeyward (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand the core principles before understanding and commenting on the remainder - you clearly do not, and that makes the reasoning behind your comments much clearer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning is that the sanction you proposed is not supported by the principles of WP, the evidence presented or the findings of fact that you proposed. I understood everything you wrote and it is clearly overreaching on your part. I would hope my reasoning is clear e nough for you to understand so you can propose findings of fact and sanctions that are in line with the evidence and principles. --DHeyward (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few people commenting on the RfC agree with THAT little gem. Viridae ^Talk 09:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pot/kettle, Viridae...the instances of your incivility and misapplication of tools and position are, certainly based on percentages, far greater than any other active admin I can think of. It amuses me that you you are here trying to get JzG sanctioned when your atrocious admin history is so obvious.--MONGO 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's never been based on percentages, which you would've gathered upon being desysopped by the Committee. 86+ people are of the opinion that JzG's conduct was unacceptable. And please remember that this case is about the parties on the case page (so try to avoid making accusations about the misconduct of non parties) - of the 5 users, Viridae is not one of them (the 5th is Tony btw - but I don't know why he added himself). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I call a spade a spade when I see one. Hypocrisy can only go so far until it has to be called. We can surely add Viridae's name since he brought forth the now defunct RFAr JzG vendetta case which was merged here.--MONGO 17:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still preferrable you submitted these type of statements/accusations (and diffs to support them if you want them to be considered seriously) on the evidence page, rather than here. But in the meantime, I will inform the clerks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's JzG's past that demonstrates the problem with his continued adminship. Therefore, I don't think that a forward-looking civility parole stands to improve the situation. Either we're going to validate Guy's approach to adminship, warts and all, or we're going to repudiate it; Half measures like this will avail us nothing. However, if the desysopping proposal isn't adopted, then this would be my second choice. --SSBohio 01:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae has been added as a party since as the initiator of the separate case he'd have been a party if it were accepted separately rather than merged. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support telling users to "fuck off" isn't civil at all, regardless of who they are. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Ok, above I said civility parole is unenforcable. Most of the time it is, but however in clear cut cases like JzG's, it can be used effectively. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility supervision isn't exactly onerous. Not telling people to fuck off is not that hard. Hypocritical coming from me, but...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose would such an action serve? I am struggling to see one. Orderinchaos 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like civility remedies on principle, but for them this could be very useful. Doing nothing's too lenient, a desysop is too harsh, this probably works. Wizardman 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to a year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Log of blocks and bans. However, administrators are cautioned not to reverse or modify such actions without the Committee’s explicit approval, unless there is community consensus (by uninvolved users) at the noticeboard to do so. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - needed so administrators do not wheel-war (block duration per previous case involving admin. and incivility). Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're aiming for, but this seems unwieldy. The Committee is 15 (or so) people. By the time they get together to "approve" or overturn a block, the block will have expired. The idea that "community consensus" can be achieved on a noticeboard one way or the other to block or unblock editors as controversial as those mentioned here is unrealistic. The practical effect of this enforcement proposal would be that once a sanction was imposed by an individual admin, it would be effectively impossible to review or overturn. This, combined with the natural inconsistency of having different admins reviewing reports of subjective infractions of "civility parole" on WP:AE, is a recipe for disaster. MastCell ^Talk 17:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because group behavior is a long-standing issue here, any remedy mentioning "community consensus" may need to be tightened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandy. This needs to be the sort of consensus that is found to have formed and be stable after extended (days, not hours or minutes) discussion by an uninvolved administrator not part of the factional fighting. GRBerry 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jossi

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is a community-generated encyclopedia

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that exists because of the community that creates it and maintains it. Because the community generates the majority of the encyclopedia's content, disagreements between editors occur. The respectful airing and resolution of disagreements is normal and indeed desirable in any such community-led project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I can be said better, I am sure, but it is key to this case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Friendly amendment is to replace the second sentence with "The respectful airing and resolution of disagreements is normal and indeed desirable in any such community project." (or similar wording). Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Key point, well-formulated. Support as worded. dorftrottel (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by IP:80.65.250.135

Proposed principles

Communications outside of Wikipedia

1) Although Wikipedia is NOT a free speech zone, it also is NOT some kind of regime / cult aimed at repressing free speech outside of the project. Editors are free to discuss their thoughts, feelings and perspectives with members of the press. Being on first name terms with journalists is likewise entirely acceptable. Even ones that criticise Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This isn't perfect and as worded could be wikilawyered or gamed, but consider something like this. It's a rough view on it...

"The primary concerns of Wikipedia related to editors' communications are 1/ the prevention or reduction of gross breach of integrity of the editorial process, and 2/ the prevention or reduction of social friction, or other actions, that might detract editors from congenially collaborating on the objectives of the project, or significantly impede the aims of the project. Constructive criticism and observations on all levels can be an essential part of this, and editors are not to be censured for privately held views expressed reasonably or which do not imapct the project. In exceptional cases some kinds of communication may be incompatible with the degree of cameraderie needed for collaboration. Editors are expected to bear these in mind in their communications that might impact on the project. But otherwise Wikipedia as a project has no involvement in user communication."

I think that's more the point. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Shouldn't need saying but apparently it does so let's get it over with. 80.65.250.135 (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. When you are on friendly terms with a journalist, citing the journalist in support of your own opinions within article space is seriously inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the card of being in good terms with a journalist as leverage in editorial disputes is inappropriate, divisive, and against the principles of this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the spirit, but the wording could be better. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Jossi, that doesn't sound too good. I did a search in the evidence so far for "journalist" and "Metz" and did not find anything from either of you that actually establishes the sort of connection you refer to, do you have evidence you are planning to introduce about this? Because if not, about all that cane be said is "that's true, but what's your point?" ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence in the evidence page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe take this to the talk for that page, because I looked at the evidence already, as I said, and I don't see where there's any "leverage" ++Lar: t/c 10:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, dave souza and FeloniousMonk do mention "journalist" in their evidence. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<undent> I've only looked at the Picard affair, in which Cla68 says he was commenting on a post by Moulton. That post responded to a question if "Picard called attention to this travesty to the press", and Moulton describes trying to interest "Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press" in the story. He calls Bergstein a "reporter" and a "journalist". Cla68's post introduced the idea of editors "having their real names in the press". As Moulton is currently indefinitely blocked, the proposed wording would not apply to him, and I'm unaware of anyone else using acquaintance or friendship with reporters in a doubtful way. Bergstein had apparently been invited to take part in a Not The Wikipedia Weekly session by Durova, which is completely in order. So, I'm puzzled about the intention of the proposal here. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by User:Dragon695

Proposed principle

Guilt by association

1) Mere membership by an editor in some external website that has members who have been involved in violations of policy is not actionable without evidence that the editor has some personal involvement in said violations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based on the CAMERA lobbying Proposed decision. There is an allegation being made by some that mere participation in sites such as Wikipedia Review makes one responsible for actions taken by other members of said site. May need to be worded better, but this is what crossed my mind while following this case. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support - everyone involved seems to run afoul of this sort of idea. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what that external website is. This finding is obviously about Wikipedia Review. Ok, that's fine. But if someone were a member of, say, Stormfront, and were to make mildly objectionable comments here that might otherwise be ignored or assumed to have been unfortunately phrased, it's not unreasonable to take those comments in the context of the person's membership. --B (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But even in that case we are only taking the actual offenses against en.wikipedia from the folks who perform them. So, while one may make assumptions about an editor who is a member of a group like stormfront, if the editor behaves themselves here, with the exception of some mild incivility (or even not so mild) it's not an issue with the group membership (even when other members of the group are actively disrupting the project). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but given how upset LaraLove was, I think it better to err on the side of AGF and fight for NPOV on more sound reasoning. Guilt by association is a common ad hominem attack used to discredit the opponents argument, primarily because it is much easier than arguing based on the facts. Emotion always is going to affect our rationality, for better or worse, so the extent to which we can refrain from gaming others' emotions makes for a better collaborative environment. I would note, however, that I thought very highly of a recently outed editor and feel that those who used his personal information to harass his workplace are terribly misguided individuals who need to re-examine their personal ethics. That being said, I do not blame those editors who participate in the forum that was established by the harassers. It is neither appeasement nor is it enabling to have dialogue with one's enemies, its only when you participate in bad behavior that you actually cross the line. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected LauraLove -> LaraLove. Hope that's okay. Neıl 龱 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Support this. Having an account on Wikipedia Review does not mean you are guilty of the actions of some of the members, any more than if both of you had a MySpace or Facebook account. Neıl 龱 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for fixing that! ^_^ --Dragon695 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about when administraters go to these offsites and link back to userpage vandalism of our editors and refer to it as "funny"? How about when we have members of this project who have been granted numerous powers go to these offsite forums and participate in hounding editors they have had disagreements with? No doubt we cannot regulate and shouldn't expect to regulate what our contributors do off-wiki, but certainly I think it is a discredit to those contributors if they use these other forums to attack, harass or participate in efforts to identify and join in character assassinations of wikipedia editors.--MONGO 12:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If, and I mean if, you have conclusive evidence that mis-conduct is happening, then the principle does not apply as the second half clearly states. As to your other point, well that is your opinion. I see those violations happening, but not by any respect editors here. Most of the people on that forum just vent about perceived double standards and unfairness. Others enjoy pointing out hypocrisy with a gotcha mentality. And yet others advocate for policy changes to make Wikipedia better. Some want to see us improve while others want to see us destroyed. Some choose to engage in unethical behavior. Others try to engage aggrieved users in an attempt to head off the kind of disruption that happens when ill will festers for too long. It's a mixed bag of nuts, you can't judge it by looking at a single one. So to cast aspersions for mere membership alone is naturally absurd. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but would broaden the scope and include a link to Wikipedia:NPA#Personal attacks: [...] some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] 'Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack.' dorftrottel (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding your version as a subrevision? I'm not entirely clear on what you are asking for. Thanks! --Dragon695 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure myself. I think I'd lay the focus on Wikipedia editors' behaviour and communication. Imho, the current proposal reads like a defence plea or a suggested policy when it's very simply about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour as explicity covered by policy. According to WP:NPA, 'using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream' is unacceptable behaviour, while 'pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack.' (emphasis mine) dorftrottel (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Action on Wikipedia should relate to specific instances of unacceptable or contra-policy behaviour. If we have an avowed Nazi editing the Israel article or an avowed Satanist editing the God page, as long as they can adhere to our policies or guidelines and edit in accordance with WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE etc, we should not give a stuff. In short, deal in incident, not rumour. I'm not opposed to specific actions offsite being examined, as long as it is actions and not merely the fact they're there. Orderinchaos 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry, but I have to point something out to you :P. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:William M. Connolley

Proposed principles

Not a bureaucracy

1) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

standard William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is important to make sure that Wikilawyering and process don't override the overall goal of building an encyclopedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear God, Support this with the very fibre of my being. Contributing to an encyclopaedia should not require one to become an accomplished politician. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Stephan's comment. Orderinchaos 20:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

JzG commended

1) JzG is commended for his many valuable contributions to the project, both as editor and adminstrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed...one of our best admins...one of the finest at seeing BS for what it is...clear headed and well intentioned.--MONGO 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Evidence does not support remedy. Chronic inability to work well with others, terribly uncivil, and unable to control his temper. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose on three counts. First on principle, empty remedies are entirely pointless and it is unnecessary to even discuss them. Second, an RfC where consensus seemed to lean toward him having problems equates to someone who someone who shouldn't have a remedy like this. Third, i'm 99% sure ArbCom doesn't touch "commendation" remedies anyway. Wizardman 00:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they did in the CAMERA decision. But that was a clear-cut case of professionalism at its best. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of Course. --DHeyward (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per my objections below. Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Recognition of editors is more important than censuring them, since editors do more to help the project than to harm it. Just because we might criticize one or more particular elements doesn't require that we forget about the rest of the editor's body of work. --SSBohio 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give your friend a barnstar instead. dorftrottel (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support sentiment but don't see any point in this resolution - it's almost a backhanded compliment. Orderinchaos 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's give him another medal for telling editors to fuck off.

SashaNein (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin commended

2) SlimVirgin is commended for her many valuable contributions to the project, both as editor and administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has endured more wikistalking and onwiki (as well as offsite) attacks than almost any other editor and is still around...kudos for standing her ground in the face of relentless harassment.--MONGO 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet... she blatantly attacks other uses, therefore I don't agree with this. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Evidence does not support remedy. Clearly engages in harassment of others, while using such claims as a shield from scruitiny of her behavior. Coerced an oversighter into hiding her embarrassing edits and mis-deeds from examination. Has many ownership problems, uses a meatpuppet to gang up on editors she disagrees with, and uses a private mailing list to canvass for various !votes. Also showed a complete lack of sound judgment in the Mantemorland case, attacking anyone who even remotely tried to uncover the egregious sockpuppetry that happened there. No, she should be roundly sanctioned for her bad behavior. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course. --DHeyward (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Give a barnstar if you like. This is not ArbCom's job. Jehochman ^Talk 23:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Recognition of editors is more important than censuring them, since editors do more to help the project than to harm it. Just because we might criticize one or more particular elements doesn't require that we forget about the rest of the editor's body of work. --SSBohio 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give your friend a barnstar instead. dorftrottel (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a fantastic idea. It don't think SV even realizes the magnitude of sheer joy she has imparted to each of us, her adoring fans. With every edit, SlimVirgin hoists the lofty, radiant beacon of true collaboration, unflinching neutrality, inexhaustible generosity, guileless transparency and scrupulous fair play. She is the heart... I daresay the soul of Wikipedia, and the Committee would do well to remind her of these truths. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbs are just skimming this, and so might not realize that the above is a bitingly sarcastic response - well, for the ease of the Arbs judging consensus on this page, it is. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, as a sidenote, I also strongly oppose this ridiculous motion, as well as the other two in this section. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the contrast in responses amusing. Yes, of course, SlimVirgin has been and remains one of our best editors and administrators despite working in controversial areas and attracting a lot of often quite inexplicable hostility. I commend her patience. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I, in turn, wish to commend Tony Sidaway's invariably pertinent, constructive and reasoned contributions to Arbitration proceedings. My only complaint (admittedly a minor one) is that Mr. Sidaway only seems comfortable commenting on matters familiar to him and spends far too much time cluttering his incisive analysis with evidence (or, in our inelegant jargon, "diffs") to support what is--and by its very nature must be--undeniably and painfully obvious--effort that, in my view, could be better expended exercising his prodigious intuition and raw insight, unencumbered by fact. The Arbitration Committee should recognize his indispensable services and invite him to increase the breadth and frequency of his contributions. Go, Tony, Go!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those keeping score at home (rather a large scorecard, I expect!)... I believe that too was sarcasm. I'm not sure that the use of sarcasm is the most effective way to get the point across but I was amused... and I've watchlisted that page, thanks! ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can be assured that I won't be putting myself forward until the end of Blu Aardvark's second term. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FeloniousMonk commended

2) FeloniousMonk is commended for his many valuable contributions to the project, both as editor and administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sounds reasonable to me. Guettarda (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has done more for the project than 99% of all other editors...we support those that are here for the general good of the project.--MONGO 22:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone with more than 10 edits has done more for the project than 99% of all other editors. That has nothing to do with whether or not his use of the admin tools has been appropriate. This comment goes for the other two as well - why even put stuff like this in here? Even if you don't believe that these users have been abusive in their use of the administrative tools (which, btw, in the case of JzG and SV, I have no dispute with their administrative actions as a whole), the arbiters are highly unlikely to use such a finding. I can't think of a time other than the "Kelly Martin thanked" ruling that such a finding was used and that was controversial. --B (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys seem to have ArbCom confused with the people who hand out barnstars... the headlines of this group of proposals remind me of the newspaper headline in one of the Back to the Future movies that switched between "Doc Brown Commended" [for scientific achievements] and "Doc Brown Committed" [to an asylum] depending on how history was changed. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Evidence does not support remedy. Has severe chronic civility problems, especially in various encounters with users he disagrees with. Has engaged in wheel warring over blocks. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Barnstars all around. For the record, "Doc Brown Invents Time Travel" would have been the finding of fact. I prefer to be on the "Doc Brown Commended" list. --DHeyward (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the people being proposed for commendation here are more like Biff, or perhaps Mr. Strickland, than they are like Doc. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as an empty proposal. Give a barnstar, anyone, if you feel this is warranted. Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems to be necessary to point out the obvious: supporting this, and similar above, is a convenient way to oppose the tediously numerous proposals to desysop, restrict, hamstring and/or disembowel, without going to the trouble of opposing each individually William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone in their right mind, who actually looked at the evidence page, want to oppose those remedies? dorftrottel (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Recognition of editors is more important than censuring them, since editors do more to help the project than to harm it. Just because we might criticize one or more particular elements doesn't require that we forget about the rest of the editor's body of work. --SSBohio 01:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give your friend a barnstar instead. dorftrottel (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bwrs (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:SchmuckyTheCat

Comment by others:

Our policy page only describes new user recruitment of puppets; however, the first sentence describes the tandem revert warring and discussion canvassing done by those in association with SlimVirgin extremely well. Arbcom should endorse this second sentence to acknowledge tandem editing by groups of closely aligned editors who organize their behavior. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Too broad. It only includes groups of established editors that edit in a very narrow area. If that were not the case, even this arbcom (and the committee itself would be simply a collection of meatpuppets). Some editors may argue that this is the case but that makes it a totally unworkable definition as it has no practical application. --DHeyward (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only too broad taken out of the context of this case. See bullet 3 under enforcement for practical application in this case. I do think a further discussion on making a working practical definition and prescription for the project should occur on the talk page of WP:SOCK at a later time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Take time off to cool off

4) If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions, and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? (taken from Wikipedia:Ownership of articles)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wise advice. Some may need others to tell them when. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Good advice but not really a principle useful in arbitration. We deal here with cases where parties have not disengaged--typically the Committee puts a case on hold or drops it altogether if one or other party disengages and there are no ongoing issues. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When topic bans are a good idea

5) partial bans are sometimes used when a user's disruptive activities are limited to a specific page or subject matter. (taken from Wikipedia:Banning policy)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The subject matter of animal rights seems to stir up the disruptive tactics by SlimVirgin. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Another focus of trouble are articles related to Israel and Judaism. Consider such articles as New antisemitism, Battle of Jenin, Martin Luther (the issue there was the reception history of his antijudaistic/antisemitic writings) and the whole "Allegations of Apartheid" saga. To her credit, she has stepped back from editing on the subject, but who can guarantee there won't be problems should she decide to put her foot in again? 129.170.22.239 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is no big deal

6) Adminship is no big deal. (taken from Wikipedia:ADMIN#No_big_deal)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Important principle that I revised my discussion of other proposed remedies on. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The clarification at WP:NBD is important - "while correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, the title of 'administrator' is not a big deal". This case is about whether or not the tools have been used correctly and admins have conducted themselves appropriately, which is a big deal. --B (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But removing or adding the adminstrative bits is not a big deal. So the sysop/desysop proposals aren't either. [67] & [68]SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Successive arbitration committees have revisited this initial principle. I think it's recognised that adminship is to be reserved for those who can be trusted with that responsibility. On good evidence, the committee has revoked the adminship of editors in the past (in at least one case, this happened to the same administrator twice after two separate successful requests for adminship). The Committee has increasingly addressed problems caused by administrators (including administrators who publicly offered to abuse their adminship privileges (Everyking's desysopping), and so-called "wheel wars" involving multiple administrators (various but the Pedophilia case was probably the watershed), the Inshanee, Betaacommand and several other desysoppings). The committee has ruled repeatedly that administrators are held to a higher standard and, for instance, must not respond in kind when attacked. Adminship is therefore, I suggest, a bit more than "no big deal". --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship should be easy come, easy go. If being an admin is not a big deal, then removing it shouldn't be either. I am well aware of how many times it has been removed by ArbCom. If being an admin is not a big deal, then there shouldn't be all this drama about taking it away. If the drama exists because adminship is too difficult to re-attain once removed then RfA is broken and those with the bits removed should work towards fixing it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Proposed findings of fact

Rules lawyering

1) SlimVirgin has engaged in rules lawyering.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Specifically pertinent to discussions around whether serial tandem revert warring is actionable and to the archives on Talk:ALF. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Group edit warring

2) SlimVirgin has engaged in harmful revert warring together with groups of aligned editors. This group activity is likely organized by off-wiki communications.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is undeniable by any look at the contributions claiming it. The ANI discussion contains recognition of this as well known. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

No doubts about the truth, accuracy or wording of the first sentence. While the second sentence is 'likely' true, there's no evidence to support it so it should be omitted. dorftrottel (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<late comment> Then how come Jayjg accidently mailed the en-wiki mailing list that one time? </late comment> Kwsn (Ni!) 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppeting

3) SlimVirgin communicates off-wiki with groups of aligned editors for the purpose of supporting each other in revert wars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The number of incidences of Crum375, et al, quickly coming to the aid Of SlimVirgin during her revert wars is too high to be coincidence. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In revert wars, and other types of wars. This is unhealthy and should be stopped. Whether it rises to the level of meat puppeting is questionable, but for the sake of transparency, use of private mailing lists to formulate strategies should be strongly discouraged. Jehochman ^Talk 23:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this ("communicates off-wiki") is supported by the evidence presented. I keep a tab in my browser open tuned in to the contribs of my wife, and refresh as part of my general review process. If I see something interesting, I may review, comment, or otherwise act (I sometimes block vandals that she reverts, she's not an admin and doesn't want to be one but she has a few articles she watches, if a vandal is repetitive or has been warned sufficiently, I block. That's right and proper in my view...). No direct communication is required to quickly come to participate in a matter initated by another. The issue rather is whether coming to such aid is appropriate and proper, or is instead stacking or serial tandem edit warring or some other behaviour that we ought not to countenance. A rewording about aiding might be more supportable. ++Lar: t/c 03:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is being addressed and examined by ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which should be as simple as straightforwardly asking her, at least for starters. dorftrottel (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topical POV

4) The subject matter of animal rights seems to stir up the disruptive tactics by SlimVirgin.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd say that this is true but it needs to be worded more like, "SlimVirgin has used disruptive tactics in topics related to animal rights" or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Simple acknowledgement. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Please don't wikilawyer

1) The ArbCom stronly encourages SlimVirgin not to belabor the fine points of policy pages in discussions, and not to look for loopholes justifying inappropriate actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nothing negative here, encourage self-help. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

SlimVirgin 1RR

2) For edit warring, SlimVirgin is placed on 1RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A veteran administrator should not be gaming 3RR and using 3 reverts as an entitlement. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Oppose, the comment makes it clear that this is not preventive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, the comment makes it very clear that it is intended to prevent the user from continuing to game 3RR and treat it as an entitlement. --Random832 (contribs) 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromises such as this one are guaranteed to produce more problems than either of the two true alternatives. dorftrottel (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serial tandem edit warring probation

3) Those who edit closely aligned to SlimVirgin are on notice that group edit warring will not be tolerated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See enforcement below on practical effect. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Support, even if 2 isn't adopted, this should be. Wizardman 19:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, SlimVirgin and friends should follow the rules that they ask to enforce on everyone else. So, yes, this makes sense. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~'Those' should imo be replaced with the names of those users who demonstrably did tag-team edit war with her on at least one occasion.~~ dorftrottel (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the remedy, see the enforcement of item 3 immediately below. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Yep. dorftrottel (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. dorftrottel (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a given, so support. giggy _(:O) 01:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topical bans may be useful, probationary period

4) SlimVirgin is warned that repeated edit warring over the same subject matter may be subject to topical bans. This warning period lasts for one year.

3) Editors who are aware of the serial tandem edit warring probation around SlimVirgin may be blocked for performing reverts with or otherwise acting as a proxy for SlimVirgin. A log of users who have been put on notice will be kept at the bottom of the Final Decision. Crum375, Jayjg, Jossi, and JzG are put on notice with the decision and the closing clerk will copy this restriction to these users talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A workable mechanism to enforce meatpuppetry claims. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I like this and the one above. Hopefully will prevent revert warring. Kwsn-pub 04:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I also think MONGO should be included as well.~~ Kwsn-pub 06:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh...based on what? I don't edit the same things as any of these folks.--MONGO 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're quick to defend her, but usually on project space pages and rarely on main. Retracted. Kwsn-pub 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not hard to defend someone when they are being constantly sniped at over much to do about nothing and when so much of this sniping has been originating from offsite venues.--MONGO 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really bold claim considering Slim and her buddies have done it as well over private mailing lists. WR, as much as that place may be troublesome, is much more transparent than the mailing lists. Kwsn (Ni!) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seems like an inovative solution to a problem based on people rather than topics. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topical bans, enforcement

4) Adminstrators may impose on SlimVirgin article bans on individual pages or wide subject matter bans with evidence of disruptive editing. Disruptive editing includes, but is not limited to, rules lawyering, edit warring, and serial tandem edit warring. Page and subject matter notices should be placed on relevant articles, and bans noted at the bottom of the decision page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not particularly onerous if SlimVirgin doesn't edit disruptively. Can be avoided entirely by playing by the rules everyone else does. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Proposals by John254

Proposed findings of fact

JzG

1) JzG has engaged in extensive incivility, abuse of administrative privileges, and other disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_John254. John254 15:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

JzG desysopped

1) JzG's administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely, and may not be restored except by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per the "JzG" proposed finding of fact. John254 15:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta.--MONGO 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, he may have been incivil, but I don't see abuse of the tools here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His indefinite block of me, crassly calling me a "drama whore" while blaming me for inactivity, and falsely accusing me of "harassment" in my block log, is a serious abuse of the tools.Proabivouac (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia's most abusive administrator.[69]Proabivouac (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussion above. dorftrottel (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG banned for one month

2) JzG's editing privileges are revoked for a period of one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, per the "JzG" proposed finding of fact. John254 15:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking to inflame the situation further, this is a great way to do it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way too harsh. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it serves no purpose other than punishment, and like Raymond said, would only inflame things further. Dr. e X treme 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hell even I think this is over the top - but I also think that John is covering all bases. Viridae ^Talk 08:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. dorftrottel (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Admin tools are not for struggling with other admins

1) Sysops should avoid reverting the actions of other sysops without prior discussion and consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is longstanding practice. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely...one of the biggest problems we have in creating harmony among admins is due to the unilateral reversal of other admins work without seeking some sort of consensus for such actions beforehand.--MONGO 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Though it seems to happen with a fair bit of regularity, and is mostly harmful to the project's collegiality. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not longstanding practice. Instant reversal of obviously bad sysop actions is perfectly fine, followed by discussion afterwards. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should imo be amended to lay the focus on common sense, e.g. as worded in WP:REVERT: 'Reverting should be taken very seriously.' That formulation allows for the necessary exceptions but still advises strongly against light-hearted, unnecessary reverts. I believe the same principle holds for admin actions. dorftrottel (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the good of Wikipedia, not personal agendas

2) Sysops tools are not to be used for political feuding or to settle personal scores.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This assumes bad faith to a certain extent, I most certainly did not act to either perpetuate or settle a score. My actions were entirely good faith, based on my philsophy that users are valuable, new blood paticuarly so and most importantly AGF. Viridae ^Talk 05:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not have you in mind when I proposed this. Jehochman ^Talk 03:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To his credit, he did say upfront that "This assumes bad faith to a certain extent"... dorftrottel (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Per common sense. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly...it can lead to desysopping and should in some cases if it is not corrected.--MONGO 03:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Though it seems to happen with a fair bit of regularity, and is mostly harmful to the project's collegiality. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the spirit of the proposal, but caution against its application unless these abuses are clear-cut. We need to assume good faith here. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost too obvious to mention. dorftrottel (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators expected to set a good example

3) Administrators are expected to set a good example for other editors. Repeated actions by administrators in contravention of Wikipedia policies may result in desysoppings, even if no use of sysop tools is involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Parties:

Comment by Others:

Proposed. Before this is inflicted, I think we need to take into account 1/ whether the administrator has admitted problems and is working to correct them, and 2/ whether the administrator is suffering from frustration, burnout or stress in which case support may be a better option than restriction. Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious but important principle. dorftrottel (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important to highlight even if no use of sysop tools is involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Bad blood

1) Viridae has frequently used sysops tools to revert sysop actions by User:JzG. These incidents appear to have been intentional, for the purpose of frustrating and baiting JzG.

1.1) Viridae has occasionally used sysops tools to revert sysop actions by User:JzG. These incidents appear to have been intentional, for the purpose of frustrating and baiting JzG. Substantial bad blood exists between Viridae and JzG.

1.2) Viridae has occasionally used sysops tools to revert sysop actions by User:JzG. Even if these occurrences weren't intentional, the pattern of conduct demonstrated questionable judgment, and had the effect of provoking JzG to behave badly. As a result, substantial bad blood exists between Viridae and JzG.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence supporting this statement in the evidence for this case at present. However, I'm sure we can all recall two or three occasions where Viridae has reverted JzG's admin actions, and the recommendation was for the two to avoid interacting. Accepting that Viridae has reverted JzG on occasion, the statement has a few problems - firstly, a couple of occasions does not equate to "frequently". Secondly, one would hope all uses of administrative tools were intentional. Thirdly, the end of the second sentence is wholly conjecture. Suggest "Viridae has on occasion used sysop tools to revert sysop actions by User:JzG, despite being advised not to". Neıl 龱 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. 1.1 is proposed. Jehochman ^Talk 23:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "even if these occurrences weren't intentional, the pattern of conduct demonstrated questionable judgment"? PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better - there's less assumption of bad faith with Phil's suggestion. Neıl 龱 14:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like versions of this that do not indicate bad faith. Viridae seems to do it only when (in viridae's view) JzG is in the wrong. This needs the full set of evidence diffs to back it up also. (I've not looked at the evidence page yet today, it might be there now). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were not, in any case, for the purpose of annoying JzG. Nor have they been frequent. Indeed the most recent time the speedy deletions were reversed because as they were labelled uncontroversial housekeeping - the owner of the page asking for them back is obviously an uncontroversial reversal. Viridae ^Talk 05:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully trying to avoid ABF, but from the presented evidence it's clear that you frequently undid admin actions of Guy well aware that it would upset him. Judging by other comments of yours, you did nothing to avoid getting Guy upset or to rebut the impression and concern that you did it intentionally, either. Even where actions you performed were in and of themselves correct, you know perfectly well that you could and should have let someone else, less involved handle it. dorftrottel (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae, we're all playing for the same team. We need to try to support each other (even if that means being firm, at times). Please don't do things you know will upset JzG, and I'd ask him to extend the same courtesy to you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats all very well, and I will agree to avoid JzG - but JzG flys off the handle at the slightest provacation - intentioanl or otherwise. I strongly belive that anyone overturning the five blocks mentioned in MONGOs evidence would have got the same angry response from JzG - he simply cannot handle his judgement being questioned. So while I might avoid interaction the problem will remain. Viridae ^Talk 04:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be to your credit if you follow that plan. Should JzG fly off the handle at other folks, that would tend to prove your point. Either way, your stepping away from conflicts with JzG is likely to help the project. Jehochman ^Talk 04:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I support any findings sanctioning Viridae, in general, but I certainly support a suggestion to just leave it be... there are 1500 admins, after all. Count on meatball:DefendEachOther if necessary. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen sufficient evidence to support a contention similar to Neil's in the comments above, as an alternative to the wording provided. Orderinchaos 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68's RFA

2) Cla68's request for adminship was extended and closed as "failed" due to meat puppetry coordinated by User:SlimVirgin.

2.1) Cla68's request for adminship was extended and closed as "failed" due to opposition by a group of editors coordinated by User:SlimVirgin.

2.2) Cla68's request for adminship was extended and closed as "failed" due to false accusations (well poisoning) by User:SlimVirgin, and opposition from editors associated with her.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on my evidence, and others'. Jehochman ^Talk 00:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Meat puppetry" may be too strong and loaded a term, but she certainly rallied a clique of friends into torpedoing that RFA, probably including canvassing of some form. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See 2.1. Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About all this remedy would indicate is that Cla68's unhealthy and disruptive obsession with SlimVirgin was started by this...furthermore, coordinated by SlimVirgin? That sure is a stretch. She bought evidence that Cla68 was unfit for adminship and others agreed with that evidence and opposed his Rfa subsequently.--MONGO 03:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All what needs to happen to dispel this obvious myth, is for Cla68 to apply for adminship again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit - the RfA was going to pass until SV came out with accusations that Cla was wordbomb - that is the only reason it failed. Viridae ^Talk 05:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the way I read Slim's questioning at the Rfa, she is asking him about why he suddenly appeared at the Gary Weiss article and nominated it for deletion...in the process of nominating it, Cla68 linked to a !BADSITE! which had harassment posted about Slim...Slim states she thought Cla might be another Wordbomb sock...and there was every reason for her to state that based on her questioning which continues afterward...Cla made his first edit to the article (as far as I can tell) here, on 10/25/2006..the same day he added controversially attributed information to the Angela Beesley article [70]]...I see no evidence that Cla showed any interest in Gary Weiss, Naked Short Selling or related issues prior to that edit...Cla then edited the article, adding fact tags and commenting in his edit summary "the article has a lot of uncited assertions, if they're not cited soon, some editor will probably start deleting them. Uncited text is always ok for immediate deletion without discussion.", then demanded inline cites [71] and added "self-promotional" (regarding Weiss' website) in the process which Mantanmoreland reverted [72] and then Cla nominates it for deletion 12 minutes after Mantanmoreland makes that edit.[73]. Cla sudden interest in the article, that it is completely unrelated to anything else he has had a previous interest in, and his odd determination to insult (by adding the self-promotional jab) and then try to get the bio deleted, raised Slim's eyebrows and surely was an explanation for her questioning at the Cla Rfa and her early suspicions that Cla could be a Wordbomb sock account or possibly a meatpuppet.--MONGO 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slim also claimed that Cla was from Utah (or whatever state it is that WB is from) - despite it being already known he lives in Japan. She failed to retract the accusations of scokpuppetry despite that information. Viridae ^Talk 07:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slim stated once "Also, I forgot to say earlier that, judging by some of Cla's edits, he appears to be based in the same state as WordBomb" and I see no other similar comment after that from her. Cla68 replied to the single time that was stated that he lives in Japan.--MONGO 07:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So edited. My mistake. Viridae ^Talk 07:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal belief, after all I've come to learn, is that this rings absolutely true. However, the evidence does not currently support this particular FoF. More worrisome are surrounding issues which can (and have been) introduced as evidence, such as this diff, which remains one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've seen from any editor in good standing. When I asked her about it back then (it's in the deleted revisions of her talk page), she reassured me that this is the way policy is created. The evidence and I agree that it may be her way of editing policy, but it's not acceptable by any ethical standards to adjust policy to aid oneself in an ongoing conflict. Not only is it inappropriate, it's dirty tactics at their very worst. dorftrottel (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence? None has been presented that SV, who has edited a lot of policy pages, has done anything aimed at getting the upper hand in a content dispute. If there is any such evidence, I suggest it be presented, as that would be problematic. In the absence of that, I don't think your accusation is fair at all. --122.162.142.154 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of evidence, "co-ordinated" is a bad faith assumption. SlimVirgin opposed and her associates followed her lead - this is all that can be proved. Was the sudden burgeoning of opposition based on a faulty premise unfair to Cla68? Yes. Can it be shown this opposition was co-ordinated by SV or anyone else? No. Neıl 龱 08:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my opposition to Cla68 at his Rfa had zero to do with any connection with Wordbomb (who I had never heard of before) and had everything to do with his posting of links to harassment. Whether this was inspired by some offsite venue or not I have no idea...but Cla showing up suddenly at Gary Weiss and making attempts to dismantle the article is shown in the diffs. I wonder where the motivation came from since that article is so divergent from his usual prior interests.--MONGO 08:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you used the failed BADSITES policy as a litmus test for adminship. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I will do it every single time an admin prospect believes it is okay to link to offsite harassment.--MONGO 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been accused many times of beating a dead horse on the subject of why BADSITES is bad policy, but lately most of the horse-beating on that subject seems to be coming from you. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is your best right. But the attack sites controversy was never as simple as "linking to harassment, yes vs. no". The true conflict cannot imo be truthfully broken down further than "never link to any page hosted on a website that also hosts attacks" vs. "sometimes it may be appropriate to link to a subpage of such a website". You and others opposed Gracenotes' RfA based on fact that he supported the latter, after he calmly and in a reasoned manner participated on the other side of a debate with you, which, I might add, raises an eyebrow about your approach to and respect for fellow Wikipedians (losely quoting from many statements in the debate alleging guilt by association for those who opposed a total linkban). Saying e.g. GN 'believed it is okay to link to offsite harassment', as you are well aware, is an arbitrarily oversimplified and laden statement, the spirit of which I can agree with (as your esteemed opinion) but not its degree of matter-of-factliness as pertaining to this meta-behavioural debate. dorftrottel (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Occam's razor, coordination is the simplest, most likely explanation for so many opposes showing up in such a short time, a high percentage of them frequent associates of SlimVirgin. The only bad faith apparent here was the well poisoning she did. An acknowledgment of mistakes from SlimVirgin and a promise not to disrupt future RFAs would ease my concerns. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely incorrect. I rarely stand as in support of or in opposition to an admin candidate until after I see what arguments arise as the Rfa progresses. It might seem odd but I and a lot of people have the Rfa page watchlisted.--MONGO 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler explanation would be users habitually following SlimVirgin's lead on RFAs - no coordination would be required, just a somewhat ovine disposition. Neıl 龱 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To err is human; to mindlessly follow another's error ovine! *Dan T.* (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, I have to agree with Jehochman's point regarding the timespan. Imho it is not even remotely plausible to assume that all of the opposers 'just happened by' within less than 24 hours, after not having commented in the RfA for the entire week of its normal running time. Another important factor is the fact that a large proportion (though by no means all) of the opposers are people more or less closely associated with SlimVirgin. Something about this just stinks, and I second the hope that SlimVirgin will comment on this and at the very least acknowledge the plausibility of these concerns, given the context of the entire evidence presented so far. dorftrottel (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to support anything more than people watchlisting interesting pages and acting on what they see. It's certainly an effect with me - if I see a comment by a Wikipedian I have a particularly high (or low) opinion on in a changelog, I quite often find myself looking at the issue. This is not the only possible explanation, but it is supported by both Bill the Barber and WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support any version. There is no doubt in my mind that the actions done by SV ruined Cla68's chance at adminship. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...probably permanently, no matter how this case is decided and how the politics of Wikipedia realigns and shifts... with the huge supermajority needed to pass RFA, and the large segment of the population who claims to abhor "drama" (even while some of the same people monger it all the time), anybody who's been in the middle of a lot of controversy (whether his fault or not) will probably get lots of "oppose" votes in any future RFA forevermore. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support any version. That well was poisoned badly. If Cla68'sc chances are ruined permanently, then the remedy below should be used to resolve that. ++Lar: t/c 00:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanciful. See this discussion which led to the extension. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That extension request was based on what we now know (except for those who are adamantly denying what is plain to most) to be fallacious premises. Taxman acceded to the request in apparent good faith, no fault there, but I suspect, had he known what we know now, he would not have. While I don't think a finding of "coordinated" is supported by the evidence introduced, it does seem a bit odd how many people turned up in short order. As I've said elsewhere it's not unusual to monitor the contribs of others. Perhaps votestacking (which I used elsewhere) is a bit harsh, perhaps "bad judgement" is more appropriate. But in any case the RfA was poisoned and I think SlimVirgin apparently engaged in special pleading to torpedo it by securing an extension. That extension should be undone. The 'crats cannot, by long standing tradition, go back of their own volition and set things right. Hence a remedy is needed to do that. ++Lar: t/c 14:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The request was made in good faith. Good evidence existed and the RFA was delayed because of eminently sound, good faith reasoning based on that good evidence. You mention special pleading; "had he known then what we know now" is special pleading. It would be perfectly in order for Cla68 to apply for adminship, and perhaps some people who believe that subsequent events in some way vindicate his actions might rethink their opposition. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, the reasoning provided was eminently fallacious, and had it come from any editor other than that small subset that we know have been subject to extensive harassment, would have been rejected. --122.162.142.154 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation being made that supports this remedy/finding is that perhaps it was not made in good faith. I don't think there is any way to judge that, nor should we. We should always assume it unless it is obvious that it wasn't. All we can judge is the outcome. The outcome was that this RfA was poisoned by material that we know now is invalid. At least most of us do know that anyway. Whether correcting that is special pleading or not... well we try to do the thing that is best for the project. If I believed, as Neil does, that a second RfA would be a success and we would not see this poisoning again, I'd be all for rerunning one. I'm not convinced. But this may be belaboring the point so I am done. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being dense, but could someone explain to me what invalid material there was that caused it to fail? Ashton1983 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 had apparently repeatedly inserted references to a site that was set up to attack journalist Gary Weiss and was accusing him of editing Wikipedia under a pseudonym. Apparently the site also contained attacks on Slim Virgin, who had blocked the troll who, later, created the site. As far as I'm aware this is valid evidence. Cla68 did cite that site and also several times repeated libellous allegations made by it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems that subsequent events have shown that SlimVirgin was doing at least part of what was alleged: she was protecting an editor who engaged in sock puppetry and COI editing. That person has now been site banned. Perhaps if the allegations had been investigated thoroughly, instead of suppressed with cries of "harassment" and "cyberstalking" by SlimVirgin and her posse, maybe things would have resolved sooner. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"she was protecting an editor who engaged in sock puppetry and COI editing." Hmm, a very creative view of subsequent events. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you, but I still don't get it. What specific statements did SlimVirgin make about Cla68 at the time of his RfA which were (a) false and (b) caused it to fail? Ashton1983 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it she implied that Cla68 was Wordbomb, a much-maligned user, by drawing some very close comparisons. This is a classic case of poisoning the well, associating Cla68 with the user in order to tarnish his reputation.

And Tony, are you implying that Mantanmoreland was not sockpuppeting, or that he didn't in any of his guises edit articles where he had a conflict of interest? --129.67.162.133 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicts) I'm willing to concur with Jehochman. It did seem illogical to me though, once Cla knew a link to the site would create hostility, why edit war over it? In my opinion, Cla does share some responsibility for how that RFA went down. Although he was entirely right with regards to the facts of the case, the whole BADSITES imbroglio might not have developed in such a dramatic manner had he initially pursued the matter with the necessary discretion. Amerique^dialectics 17:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what she did say was this. Of those statements, only one turned out to be incorrect: according to Kirill Lokshin she had apparently mistaken Jimbo's courtesy deletion of Cla68's AfD of the Gary Weiss article for an "oversight" (which involves something more than a deletion). There is no good evidence to support WordBomb's allegations and those made above by Jehochman, that Slim Virgin was "protecting" someone with a conflict of interest. Slim Virgin's actions were clearly directed at removing those inappropriate attacks of the troll; Cla68's clearly directed at promoting and broadcasting them, to the extent of including them in Wikipedia content. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've looked at Anticipation's link, and had previously looked carefully at the whole RfA. She says "Cla's behavior was so inappropriate that I briefly wondered whether he was another Wordbomb sockpuppet." That's not implying that he was a Wordbomb sockpuppet. She's saying that he supported Wordbomb's agenda, and she wondered briefly if he was Wordbomb. Translation: she no longer thought so, but still thought he had behaved inappropriately. What other "false" accusations did she make that led to the failure of the RfA? That one isn't particularly convincing. Are there better examples? Ashton1983 (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not convincing: It's a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Here's how it is: Her oppose was saved April 5, 09:58 (UTC). But her initial (and therefore more honest, if that is the correct term in this context) comment in the RfA was the extension request at the talk page, in which SlimVirgin said: There was a serious concern a few months ago that Cla68 was either a sockpuppet of banned User:Wordbomb (a very abusive sockpuppet and stalker) or was helping him. My recollection is that there was no technical evidence that Cla was Wordbomb, but he definitely seemed to be helping him, and some of his edits indicate that they're based in the same area. (underlined by me) There, that is called 'poisoning the well'. There was no CU evidence, and in fact she even said so herself. Nevertheless, she did aggressively associate Cla68 with WordBomb by pulling something completely made-up out of the hat: "some of his edits indicate that they're based in the same area". Had there ever been any half-decent clue, let alone evidence, to underscore this suspicion, don't you think she might have used it? If not back then, maybe in her evidence section in this very RfAr? The fact of the matter is, she made that up with the intention to poison the well. The fact that WordBomb was indeed right about Mantanmoreland (WB's own Wikipedia policy violations notwithstanding) is just the final straw on that issue. dorftrottel (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. He said he lived in Japan[74] and there isn't any sign that people doubted that, or that his presumed location influenced any votes. And if you're looking for any half-decent clue, how about this caption? Not that it matters, since it would be an extraordinary voter who would vote based on Cla68's location rather than on his conduct. But doesn't it show that she didn't make it up? She said that he was supporting Wordbomb. Well, was he or wasn't he? Ashton1983 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't she wikifriends with Mantanmoreland, WordBomb's now-banned raison d'être on Wikipedia? dorftrottel (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"it would be an extraordinary voter who would vote based on Cla68's location rather than on his conduct" - indeed, if the location reference hadn't been used to infer a connection between Cla and Wordbomb. You've not been around for very long, I understand (I've not involved myself in politics before either but I've done due diligence in reading background information), but you should know that at the time Wordbomb was pretty reviled around the community, and tarring someone by associating them with him (especially with the suggestion of sock/meatpuppeting) would be likely to draw the community's ire against the unfortunate target. As such it appears to be a bad faith attempt to torpedo Cla's almost-successful nomination by calling for an extension on spurious grounds, and sowing seeds of doubt in voters minds. Coupled with the very suspicious arrival of a number of editors friendly to her shortly after the nomination was extended, you have to ask yourself - was this appropriate behaviour? --129.67.162.133 (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, in the absence of any confirmation or admission of co-ordination of any sort, I don't think that this has any point. --122.162.142.154 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The well-poisoning is bad enough, and it's a habit of hers. When SlimVirgin becomes irrational, which unfortunately happens every so often, she becomes mighty irrational and sees a personal offence in everything. Worse, she acts out that irrational anger. That's what happened in Cla68's RfA. Did his RfA rightly fail? No way. dorftrottel (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first torpedo of a RFA by the same group of people: before and after 96.15.172.29 (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a famous example, done on very similar (BADSITES-related) grounds to that of Cla68. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears obvious, but the bigger issue is a sense of entitlement wrt extending other processes as well. If admins of certain standing are allowed to alter processes after closing to effect their desired outcome, that issue should be addressed more globally than just this one RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment moved below. Mackan79 (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 2 to be true, but the public evidence only supports 2.2. If there is any point on which I'd suspect that the committee might have received private evidence, it is this. If no private evidence was presented, that wouldn't be convincing to me. GRBerry 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support any version. It is quite apparent that SlimVirgin was attempting to poison the well in order to show false consensus for a failed policy. --Dragon695 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support any version bar the first (meatpuppetry). I also share SandyGeorgia's concerns that this may reflect a more general issue than simply this RfA, although it is probably the clearest demonstration of it. Orderinchaos 20:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Viridae deadminned

1) ~~Viridae's sysop access is removed. They may apply for restoration of access through normal channels or by appeal to the committee.~~ (struck by Jehochman ^Talk)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See responsees to MONGOs evidence posted further down this page in the evidence review. Viridae ^Talk 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Viridae's long term involvement in these political struggles has been singularly unhelpful. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much. An instruction to leave undoing Guy's actions to others would be preferable. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's already been tried and ignored. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~No. dorftrottel (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

At this point, insufficient evidence to support this remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

only makes sense if all admin's in this case are deadmin'd. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm game for that, if it will stop the incessant feuding. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would, e.g. because enforcement would be that much easier. dorftrottel (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely support the desysoping of every single administrator involved, regardless of which side I think is right. SashaNein (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably too harsh. A warning should be sufficient if the findings of fact are found to support the case for a remedy. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd retract this if Viridae undertakes not to revert any actions by JzG, and promises not to mind JzG's business. I think JzG should also state that he will ignore Viridae as much as possible. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a problem when JzG steps over the line - which to now has been occuring all too frequently. However since this arbcom case will hopefully stop that line jumping by JzG the obvious correlation is that I will stop caring what he does. In the event (I think its probobly inevitable) that arbcom restricts me from interacting with JzG I will of course honour that. Viridae ^Talk 23:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of people watching JzG. If he steps out of line there is not need for you (or anyone perceived as partisan, whether they actually are or not) to step in. Plenty of uninvolved administrators can stand up to JzG. It will be helpful to your own cause to let more people get involved instead of jumping into the battle yourself. As a measure of goodwill I am striking this proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty watching, few of them actually do anything. In reality every time a popular admin or editor steps over the line and are rightly critiscised, the rank and file close in around them and those making the critiscism are accused of harrasment. (which is frankly ridiculous - even the RfC was characterised as harassment by some. Viridae ^Talk 05:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make any sense to me. At most, a 30-day suspension could be considered, but I don't support that either. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to withdraw this proposal (for this remedy), it should be removed instead of clogging up the page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let the clerks handle this. Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence forthcoming that I think will still make this an option that arbcom will want to consider...--MONGO 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If suitable evidence appears, I will unstrike this. Jehochman ^Talk 00:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is weak at best actually (see bottom of the page). I don't see any abuse. Kwsn (Ni!) 06:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...Felonious Monk apparently put together the same diffs I had assembled but I didn't notice his evidence about Viridae until after I started posting mine...so I stopped since it wasn't necessary to repeat it...have a second look at FM's section here.--MONGO 07:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae Warned

2) Viridae is warned not to involve himself in JzG's business, and not to undo administrative actions without prior discussion and consensus.

2.1) Viridae is instructed not to revert, in whole or in part, any administrative action taken by JzG.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, 2nd chance remedy. Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems much more reasonable as a measure, though as admonishments go the wording could be polished ("not to interest himself in JzG's business" could mean any number of things, not to mention that this activity is only a problem as such if he is interfering with JzG's ability to contribute). I'd be inclined to note somewhere in there that whilst being WP:BOLD is an admirable trait, sometimes it can be inappropriate. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't force someone to not be interested in a topic. What is needed is for Viridae to not get involved. Change "interest" to "involve". This proposal is what is loosely in place already, but is worth stating. Neıl 龱 07:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thoughtcrime... you want ArbCom to take it on itself to dictate what somebody may be interested in? How will this be enforced, perhaps with their orbiting mind control satellites? Guess we need tin-foil hats to protect ourselves! *Dan T.* (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modified per Neil's suggestion. PhilKnight (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative support.~~ Support both. It's just a footnote in this RfAr, but the two have been at each others throats for quite some time now. However, the "warned" lingo seems to be calling for an according enforcement proposal. How should this be enforced? dorftrottel (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing "warned" to "asked" or better "cautioned"? There is hopefully no need to worry about enforcement because Viridae has already said that they will avoid JzG. Jehochman ^Talk 00:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Asked' has no teeth. Personally, I'd go with 'cautioned', as it contains the clearcut advice 'to be more careful in the future' but omits the possibly unconstructive overtones —given the history of this particular conflict— of a 'warning' (as in "or face the consequences"). dorftrottel (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warned not to involve himself in Jzg's business? This sounds like the mafia. Maybe it could be "instructed not to revert, in whole or in part, any action taken by JzG". (I don't know that I agree with such a proposal, but I definitely don't like this one.) --B (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt ArbCom will clean up these rough draft ideas. See 2.1. Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support only 2.1, although I'd prefer that "instructed" be changed to "directed". 2.1 is unambiguous, and eliminates potential gaming by either side. The wording for 2.0 is extremely nebulous and needlessly ominous. Dan T's comments (although overheated and unduly dramatic) express my concerns. Horologium (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 adminship

3) Cla68 is granted adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is time to right a wrong that was done. The RFA should not have been extended, and Cla68 should have passed. Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way. He can stand for adminship the usual way.--MONGO 01:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did. dorftrottel (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant to support this, if only because Cla68 would forever be tarred as "the admin that didn't pass RfA." Better to have an above-the-board RFA than to effectively make Cla68 the target of a whole new batch of drama. Dr. e X treme 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 did have an RFA, and would have passed something like 40-1, if not for the improper activities. Jehochman ^Talk 03:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, and I agree that the failure of the RFA was unjust. Two things worry me, though. The first is what I said above; the other is the fear that this might "open the floodgates," so to speak, by providing a way (however convoluted) to bypass the RfA system. If Cla68 were to submit an RfA tomorrow, I'd vote in favor; I just don't think it's within the ArbCom's purview to do this. I'm not an expert on ArbCom cases, though... has ArbCom granted sysop tools before to someone who has not been a sysop? Dr. e X treme 07:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge, but it's part of the AC's function to make decisions without precedent. dorftrottel (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't really suggesting we be bound by precedent, just wanted to see if there were any cases where this played out, what kind of admin "career" the reciever had, whether it turned out well or not. But, I guess this would be a first. Dr. e X treme 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and thank you, Jonathan, for presenting this. dorftrottel (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that ArbCom has to do is say that the RFA ended at the normal time, and disregard the extension and well poisoning that occurred. This is a wiki. We correct errors. Any action can be undone or reversed if there is a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 12:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely support, per Jehochman's statement immediately above mine. I was thinking the exact same thing, kudos for proposing this. 98.161.55.67 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support if I was sure that arbcom can do this. I know in a past case a similar situation occurred (with a CU related [but not involved] to this case asking why a certain user used tor) and it was stated that it was not arbcom's permission to grant adminship. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Implement by an arbcom finding that the RfA was improperly extended, and that the result at the normal closing time should be used. ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A regular rfa, but put those who scuttled it as the nominators with an appolgy for the past inappropriate behavior and urging all editors to review cla's contrubutions in that light. not a fan of arb promotion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC) or Jehochman's solution, reclose at the proper time. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem with this one - you can't turn back the clock. Regardless of whether or not Cla68's RFA should have been closed successfully, the fact is, a lot of time has passed since then. --B (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has he become somehow less suited to the role during that time? dorftrottel (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a new RFA would answer that question - agree with B. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that if the same votestackers were allowed to re-stack, it would likely fail again. I'd support a new RfA if the votestackers were allowed support or neutral (as they chose) only but were enjoindered from opposing. That applies to everyone who commented oppose during the extended period. Similarly, to be fair, those who supported during the extended period were allowed oppose or neutral only (as they chose). Ya I know that's clunky and not likely to be adopted, and might be viewed as less fair, and less within norms, than just ruling the RfA over at the normal time, and thus successful. But that well was thoroughly poisoned. Those calling for "just run the RfA again" need to address how the well will be un-poisoned before I'd support that solution. MONGO hasn't, near as I can tell, addressed that. Or even admitted that the well WAS poisoned. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's unnecessary. If there are valid concerns (or there aren't), then the question is answered. Votestacking without any substantial basis is ignored per usual. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the good old Wikipedian tradition of ignoring votestacking. dorftrottel (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the accompanying finding of fact were credible, the arbitration committee is unlikely to want to pre-empt the judgement of the community, which can be ascertained by Cla68 applying for adminship in the normal way. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"even if accompanying finding of fact were credible"... I suspect that to most, they are. That you choose to "lalala I can't hear you" is too bad, but irrelevant. The judgement of the community, prior to the well poisoning, was an overwhelming "pass". ArbCom, in reversing the extension, would merely be validating that judgement, not overturning anything, except a faulty extension. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion that if and when Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68 2 turns blue, it will easily pass the current record number of "support"s. Neıl 龱 14:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moral support for a common sense solution, although I'm not sure it follows directly. Of course it isn't just a matter of false statements either, but an editor who has thrown a lot of weight around in several RfAs, often with dubious claims or tactics, with very stunted community evaluation of her own editing. One other example was CharlotteWebb's, which failed after Jayjg asked based on previously undisclosed information why the candidate had used Tor,[75] and then in the immediately following edit (before the candidate had even answered), Crum375 voted to oppose.[76] SV soon arrived, presenting a number of justifications for Jayjg's actions while he remained silent. This seems again to be close collaboration on RfAs by the same small group of editors. In terms of defending WordBomb: in fact SV was editing with Mantanmoreland on another page the same day she answered his request to indefinitely block WordBomb.[77][78] They'd previously talked on user talk pages,[79] and Jayjg had recently asked Mantanmoreland to email him.[80] In terms of the original evidence that WordBomb sent to SV and says was forwarded to Mantanmoreland, my understanding is she claims she only forwarded the email to several admins without reading it, although this doesn't exactly add up.[81] In explaining the initial indef block of WordBomb, she's since claimed with specific oversighted edits that WordBomb posted policy-violating material after he agreed not to, although then retreating from this saying she never actually asked, knew, or saw the significance of what was in the edits she sited as evidence in the recent arbitration case (point 7 here). Certainly you can't know what really happened with much of this, and I'm not sure any of it puts ArbCom in a place to rewrite Cla's RfA, but if we're trying to correct the record about whether Cla68 was reasonable to ask questions, and whether he has a right to contest the lack of scrutiny SV's own editing has received in light of her free-wheeling accusations, his position is well supported. Mackan79 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. We should not delegate more and more responsibilities to the Arbitration Committee. The correct way to promote someone is via an RfA. We have had enough editors which were passed with record numbers despite opposition by a small, determined group of opponents. If the RfA has enough publicity (as a second Cla66 RfA would certainly have), small groups lose their influence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the RfA in question was well and truly poisoned (whether it was or not may be in contention elsewhere but let's postulate it). If so, under that postulate, what other solution do you propose? Or is it just tough noogies? Just as there is no "right to edit" there is also no "right to be an admin"... but would the project be better off with or without the administrative services of an otherwise qualified editor? I'm mindful of the jurisdictional expansion concerns, but what other remedy to you propose? ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a second RfA to demonstrate that the candidate has the trust of the community. And doing without one potentially qualified admin is a loss, but a small loss. I have the feeling that most here are concerned not about what this means for Wikipedia, but what it means for the candidate. He (I assume) may have got the short end of the stick, but on the other hand, being an admin is not a bed of roses. There is little beyond the initial ego rush that rewards the job. Being an admin is not (or at least is not supposed to be) a badge of honour, but just grants access to some tools, most of which have long since been obsoleted by much improved JavaScript hacks to your Monobook. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a second RfA to demonstrate that the candidate has the trust of the community. — I'd agree if this goes for all admins who are parties in this case. dorftrottel (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I am very reluctant to give ArbCom this authority, I think this gets to the crux of the matter. Given the intransigence of certain cliques on Wikipedia, it is impossible for Cla68 to get a fair RFA now. It would be DHMO 3 all over again, with at least 70 opposes and well over 300 supports. You saw how the opposes were when that happened, they basically said that 70 !votes was enough to demonstrate no consensus even with 300 supports. It is suboptimal, but a strong message must be sent that blatant wiki-polemics and wiki-gaming in RFAs will not be tolerated. The best way to punish the wrong-doing is to deny it the result it was working for or, if it succeeded, to reverse it. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most brilliant suggestions I have seen at Arbitration. It answers the fundamental need to treat parties fairly and to right a wrong. In practice, I think the Community is not thrilled about the idea of promoting a user who failed an RFA, even if the failure occurred by illegitimate means. For example, it is widely believed (though I personally dispute this elsewhere) that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jreferee failed because six oppose votes were all sockpuppets who vote-stacked on many other RFAs and XFDs. Had those six votes been reduced to one, the RFA would probably have passed. The correct response there was to run a second RFA for Jreferee, which passed without significant opposition. Cla68's case is different because his RFA was passing unanimously until an egregious false allegation of misconduct surfaced, rapidly turning a unanimous pass into a catastrophic fail. Jreferee's first RFA was merely the difference of five extra oppose votes tipping the balance in a close call. Ultimately, though, the solution for Cla68 would be to run a second RFA: undoubtedly it will pass with room to spare, and we can put the controversy to rest.

I will say this: in fairness to all parties in this dispute, ArbCom should either desysop SlimVirgin and FeloniousMonk, and require Cla68 to run another RFA, or it should allow current administrators to retain their access and also promote Cla68 based on Jehochman's and Lar's reasoning. Either way is fair; I just think desysopping bad admins is more fair. To allow bad admins to remain admins, while denying Cla68 the adminship he should have been granted, is not fair. Yechiel (Shalom) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The extension of Cla68's RfA was a discretionary call on the part of a bureaucrat (whose function is to exercise such discretion), and I disagree with any assertion that SlimVirgin was acting in bad faith by requesting this extension. The outcome should not be overruled unless there is an extraordinarily compelling reason to do so. Bwrs (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; as noted above a Cla68 RfA would easily make 200, maybe 300. That's the last thing he needs. giggy _(:O) 01:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support; DHMO is absolutely right - Cla68 doesn't want a huge controversial RfA and AGF does not mean "Abandon common sense in the face of all evidence to the contrary" - there clearly was intentional poisoning of the well in Cla's RfA. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... OK, poisoning the well sucks, but once a well has been poisoned you have to deal with the facts on the ground. This remedy attempts to deal with the unfortunate situation surrounding the RfA by ignoring and bypassing it, which I doubt is the best approach. In the words of Chuck Noblet, "You can't un-fry things, Jerri." This sets an awful precedent: that RfA's can be revisited a year later and overruled by the Arbitration Committee. If Cla68 has the support of the community, then he should be an admin, and the existing way to gauge that support is for him to go through an RfA. That doesn't mean the first one was fair, but we have to play the cards we're dealt here. We're talking about two things here: on the level of fairness, we can acknoweldge that the RfA was unjust or irregular, but on the level of practicality, we can't just decide a year later that it passed when it didn't. Simple: if Cla68 still wants adminship, he can go through RfA at any point. If anything, the previous RfA will probably be a net positive for him this time around, since there's a fairly strong feeling that it was badly handled. I suspect there will be close attention from the 'crats this time around to any irregularities in the process. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as going to far. I think a strong finding of fact that Slim's accusations were not founded on reasonable evidence and the failure is primarily due to her well poisoning might itself be a good start at remedy allowing a future RfA to run more smoothly. Cla has been active, and has definitely made additional enemies and garnered additional supporters since the original RfA, so I can't say for sure that today's community would support him if SV's abusive behavior were adequately regulated - but I think the strongest remedy this topic merits is adequate regulation of the behavior of SV and her friends. GRBerry 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - the RFA should be counted up based on the votes that were in before it was illegitimately extended by an individual who sought to derail it after the fact with vote-stacking and canvassing. Simple justice should prevail. Mr. IP (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral but:

Rationale towards supporting this: 1. WP:RFA is broken. This issue has been discussed since forever on the talk page of RfA and is a popular view of RfA. It is a popularity contest and very rare for a controversial Wikipedian to gain adminship, or to have it returned if taken away. The RfA process only continues to exist because of inertia. ArbCom acting in place of RfA is not a concern when the process itself is broken. 2. Adminship is no big deal. This statement has always been a guiding philosophy of Wikipedia. It is not true in current practice and it should be. ArbCom making someone an admin is making a statement that being an admin is no big deal. 3. The Cla86 RfA was out of process. Regardless of the accusations of sabotage, if it had ended at the normal time it would have been a success. ArbCom can judge that consensus as well as any bureaucrat. I'm also not against having ArbCom ask a bureaucrat to discard RfA comments entered after the standard closing schedule, rather than the extended one; or even having a bureaucrat look at the existing RfA in total, and discarding oppose rationales now seen as based on falsehood, and re-deciding consensus.

Based on this, I don't oppose Cla86 being promoted by ArbCom action. This is not support of it either, but rationale and acceptance of a choice ArbCom could take. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Adminship is a big deal. I'm familiar with Jimbo's statement, but clinging to it at this juncture is naive and wishful thinking. Admins have essentially been given a license to kill on anything resembling a BLP. ArbCom has handed over Israeli-Palestinian articles, 9/11 articles, waterboarding, and every other trouble spot to the discretion of individual admins at WP:AE. Even the most boneheaded administrative moves are difficult to reverse. RfA resembles a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, but more unforgiving. Once given the tools, you basically have to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman to have them taken away, and even then it's controversial (unless you have the misfortune to be selected as a test case). If adminship really isn't a big deal, then surely we don't need to bother ArbCom for an unprecedented reversal of a call made by a bureaucrat over a year ago? MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a reasonable compromise, perhaps Cla86 could be (co-)nominated for admin by the arbcom, with clear wording as to why? Would that cover most of the opposition here? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The flaw in Kim's suggestion is: surely the RfA would have closed before Arbcom could agree the statement of support? --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin administrator privileges are revoked

4) SlimVirgin's administrator privileges are revoked. She may apply for reinstatement via normal channels.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Based on evidence presented by SandyGeorgia, myself and others. We are not dealing with an isolated incident of poor judgment. There has been a pattern of bad decision making over a length of time, including the Cla68, Tim Vickers, MatanMoreland, and Zeraeph incidents. There is no place for political cabals nor meat puppetry on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly inclined to agree at this point, but am holding off my judgement to give SlimVirgin the chance to react to the presented evidence. dorftrottel (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would strike this if SlimVirgin provides a reasonable basis to believe that these problems will never happen again. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would that entail, exactly? If the significant and substantial evidence here presented is given credit, the problem is rather systemic and longstanding, making a "basis to believe" somewhat problematic. On the other hand, if SlimVirgin's statements (as yet unsupported with any specific evidence) are given credit, large handfuls of other editors (a significant fraction of the total number of folk she comes in conflict with, apparently) are harassing, stalking, threatening, or smearing her and her allies, and she is entirely or at least mostly not to blame for any of that. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. dorftrottel (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, I am not sure whether SlimVirgin could convince me, but I am willing to hear her response and give it fair consideration. Repeating accusations against her perceived opponents probably would not sway my opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not feel'n like any deadmins (of SV and FM) were really on the table until reading SandyGeorgia's evidence section. I still think they are unlikely, but seems needed now. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Unfortunately the abuse of minor edits, the major ownership issues, the total lack of judgment in helping editors to use Wikipedia as a battleground, and the overwhelming evidence presented by SG and others which showed her use of administrator status to make her threats more weighty shows that she can no longer be trusted with the tools. The tools are for those who put the interests of the project above their own. The evidence has shown that SV has become too much of a diva. As I stated above, a serious sanctioning policy must also be put in place with this remedy to prevent SV from proxy administrating through her known supporters. I recommend that ArbCom also re-evaluate Jayjg's oversight bit, since it was obviously abused to hide SV's wrong-doing. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also #SlimVirgin desysopped above. dorftrottel (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: NoPointofView

For the reasons set out above #SlimVirgin desysopped above.

NoPointofView (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Neil

Cla68 commended

1) Cla68 is commended for his many valuable contributions to the project, and in particular his outstanding Featured Article work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. In light of Connolley's recommendations above - establish that both "sides" have contributed valuably to Wikipedia at times. Note only five Wikipedians(!) have contributed more Featured Articles than Cla68. Neıl 龱 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I like Cla68 and think they deserve to be an admin, but I oppose empty remedies. Jehochman ^Talk 23:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too - but given the "remedies" commending JzG, SV and FM, for balance, these were necessary; either all of them would be passed, or none of them - I would prefer none of them, but this reduces the risk of one side being commended and the other not. Neıl 龱 10:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Suppport.~~ Good that you brought it up though. dorftrottel (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Arbcom is not in the business of commending any editors, whether this is deserved or not. --129.67.162.133 (talk)

True, but this proposal is a justified reaction to these. dorftrottel (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's avoid "remedies" involving commending users, as they're empty and beyond the scope of ArbCom action. If anything along those lines is necessary, perhaps it should be a "Finding of fact" noting some of the valuable contributions made by each of the case's parties, before it gets to the more serious matters of dealing with the misbehaviors and their remedies. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - they're sometimes seen as backhanded compliments, too. Orderinchaos 20:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viridae commended

2) Viridae is commended for his many valuable contributions to the project, both as editor and administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Even though Viridae knew he would be criticized and accused by some for doing so, he brought JzG's continued behavior issues to the attention of ArbCom. That is commendable. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, as above. Neıl 龱 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's avoid meaningless remedies. Give Viridae a barnstar if you think they have done good work. Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by 65.54.98.104 (talk)

Where there's smoke there's fire

When an editor or admin of clout is accused of bad behaviour, there may be a well-founded explanation for it. Dismissing these accusers as "trolls" is not constructive to debate and possibly a cop-out.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. 65.54.98.104 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one, ,and very true. Kwsn (Ni!) 04:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, but would suggest some tweaking to include something to the effect of 'know thyself' and about the importance of occasionally backing down and maybe saying sorry when appropriate. dorftrottel (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9 times out of 10 the accusation is crying wolf. The one time it is not needs to be taken seriously. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If the editors described as trolls promptly engage in dispute resolution, the accusation is all but disproved. Conversely, if they continue making comments on the other editor's user talk page, their actions could appear to corroborate it. PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an extremely poor excuse for lightheartedly throwing around word bombs (no pun intended) like "troll", "harassment" etcpp. I consider e.g. "troll" as nothing but an always useless and unhelpful personal attack even if that editor has in fact been trolling. Complaining about an angry response after baiting the other party into that very response by calling them a troll is so hypocritical it makes me wonder how that admin bit feels about itself... dorftrottel (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not always the case. Every admin of my acquaintance has had bizarre accusations levelled against them at various times, often simply to mask the accuser's own actions - which have often seen them indef-blocked by a neutral admin, and not always over the same matter. Orderinchaos 20:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedy

1)JzG and SlimVirgin restricted admin functions. They may use their admin abilities in only non-controversial aspects of the project for 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think it is better in general if those who became admins after two years disengage from the more contentious aspects and take a break from it. This could cut down a lot of drama and let in fresher admins deal with the more contentious issues. It could also deflate any notions of cabalishness. 65.54.98.104 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define "non-controversial" - this is very vague. I personally dislike restricting admin roles - either we trust them to be an admin or we don't, in which case they should be desysopped. You can't half-trust somebody. Neıl 龱 07:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree sort of. I agree with neil that half admins are not appropriate, but agree with ip that long time admins need to know themselves well enough to take serious breaks from the dhrama. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All or nothing. Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jehochman. Compromises like this one would probably create more problems than either of the two true alternatives. dorftrottel (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Shalom

1) JzG's adminship is suspended for 30 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think this is a good compromise based on the precedent at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. [82] I think the parallels between JzG now and Mr. Gustafson then dictate a similar response. Both used uncivil language and made questionable administrative decisions, but both acknowledged there was a problem after 2 RFCs and said they would try to work on it. Looking at the disagreement on the proposal to desysop JzG permanently, I don't think the Community really supports taking this action, but a mere civility warning seems too lenient. That's why we rely on precedent. I think the remedy imposed on Mr. Gustafson was fair, and I think a 30-day suspension of JzG would be equally fair. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind. I now support a permanent removal of adminship (with the usual rule that JzG may appeal to the Committee or reapply at RFA). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Mackan79

Proposed principles

Unusual circumstances

1) Editors in unusual situations who wish to avoid scrutiny of their editing or editing relationships are expected to make reasonable efforts to avoid conflicts with other editors.

1.1) Editors in unusual situations who wish to avoid evaluation of their editing or editing relationships should generally limit themselves to the article namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. It seems there has been a fairly clear problem when editors in this situation are confrontational with others, and have a long history of evaluating editors in ways they don't want to be evaluated. Wikipedia can protect editors who are harassed, but not in my view at the same time as those editors pursue conflicts and confrontations with others. I prefer 1; 1.1 is presented more as a supplement than an alternative, but I think the first gets the main problem. Mackan79 (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent point. dorftrottel (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this proposal. Reject 1.1 as Wikipedia is all about consensus-based editing - rational discussion. If you're being harassed, there's RFC and ANI (and here), or simply and politely requesting anyone who is to leave you alone. 1 is unhelpful in the absence of spelling out "unusual circumstances". Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring here to issues such as not being willing to discuss the relationship with Crum375, while Crum375 has followed SV around for an extraordinarily high percentage of their editing, tag-teaming, and protecting pages for each other, or the long term deletion of SV's talk page. The fact that ArbCom immediately took this case rather than allowing an RfC is also unusual. If there is a real need for special types of protection beyond what editors normally receive, and I think SV could make a case for this, then this is where I think the principles need to apply. Alternatively, those who face her accusations (often of a very personal nature) are placed in an extremely unfair position. Mackan79 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, there is a lot of merit in the underlying thinking this principle is trying to get across even if it's not worded quite right yet. There are behaviors it is prudent to avoid, and this principle recognises that, although we want to balance that against "not letting the terrorists win". Further to Mackan's query, if someone is truly the victim of long term harassment/stalking, discussion of the situation itself publicly is problematic, as it can make matters far worse. This is why it is encouraged to contact ArbCom privately and apprise them of matters for their awareness. Special arrangements might be made. For any given editor one can never be certain that this has not already happened. In this case I'm absolutely convinced that SlimVirgin has been the focus of greater than normal attention and interest, some of it clearly malign. But being a victim of harassment is no more a free pass to excuse unacceptable behavior than being a prolific article writer is, or an effective vandal fighter is, or what have you. We all must, regardless of circumstances, endeavor to the best of our ability to edit harmoniously and within the guidelines established by consensus and long practice. I have been doing some analysis that I need to put forth in evidence, but I think that not every person characterized as a stalker by SlimVirgin necessarily is a stalker. That term gets overused, in my view, and not just by SlimVirgin. Perhaps when all you have available is sheep's clothing, every problem looks like a wolf to you. But crying wolf too many times is not an effective strategy to deal with real wolves. Even if the cries have been working to get your way against the sheep. Sooner or later they stop working. But while they do, as Mackan says, it really is unfair to the sheep. ++Lar: t/c 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed by Random832

Proposed remedies

Proposed Remedy

~~User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The restricted~~

1) User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The is required to seek permission from the arbitration committee before commenting on the case pages of any arbitration request to which he is not a party, and before adding himself as a party to any case if he was not involved in the original dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I'm just sayin'... --Random832 (contribs) 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a party though. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only times that someone not being a party has been credibly presented as a reason not to have remedies against them have been times there was genuine doubt that they were aware of the case. Arbcom has the authority to look at everyone's behavior, including behavior that occurs during the arbitration process. --Random832 (contribs) 17:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, this isn't especially helpful as part of this case. I do think it should be considered though. --Random832 (contribs) 17:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds, and what evidence? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His posts to the case pages of this case and the Mantanmoreland case speak for themselves. --Random832 (contribs) 13:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Arbitrators and others can make up their own minds - if a proposal or person is wrong i what they say or do, it'll be seen as such. It's not a total opposition to this kind of penalty - I think in some limited cases such a finding should be made against an editor if they, for instance, routinely open ArbCom cases which are turned down or make unhelpful contributions to open ones, but I'm not aware of any current editor who behaves in a manner which would require such. Orderinchaos 20:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:B

The involved administrators have misused the tools

3) The record shows that, notwithstanding many instances of proper and laudable use of administrative tools, FeloniousMonk, JzG, SlimVirgin, and Viridae have all misused administrative tools. The frequency of misuse is higher than can be justified as a reasonable error rate given their administrative workload.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. alanyst ^/talk/ 07:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. dorftrottel (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Revocation of admin privileges

1.1) Due to misuse, the administrative privileges of FeloniousMonk, JzG, SlimVirgin, and Viridae are revoked without prejudice. Each named party may immediately reapply or be renominated for adminship if they desire.
1.2) (Same first sentence as above.) Each named party may reapply or be renominated for adminship without further Arbitration Committee action after a period of 90 days.
1.3) (Same first sentence as above.) Each named party may reapply or be renominated for adminship without further Arbitration Committee action after having accomplished an editing milestone of their choosing. The editing milestone must be approved by an arbitrator in advance of the effort to accomplish it.
1.4 and 1.5) Same as 1.2 and 1.3 above, except: privileges are not technically revoked but the parties are enjoined not to use them until meeting the condition (elapsed time or editing milestone). In other words, this is a "suspended" adminship; the loss of the privilege does not appear on the logs and it can be regained automatically without an RfA. Use of admin tools before the condition is fulfilled would be grounds for immediate loss of the sysop bit and a 1-year injunction against that editor standing for reinstatement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A few variations here that can be split out for separate commentary if anyone thinks that would help. About these variations:

1.1 is self-explanatory, and 1.2 sets a simple time-out period.
1.3 is a "get some useful work done before an RfA" idea. "Editing milestones" might be in the vein of "contribute heavily to two successful Featured Article candidacies" or something of similarly worthy purpose, and each of the sanctioned parties ought to be able to craft a milestone that is suitable for them. Requiring arbitrator pre-approval ensures that the milestone can be recognized as complete, and that the effort required is comparable to the milestones chosen by the other sanctioned parties.
The idea of suspended privileges (1.4, 1.5) is a bit softer than the actual de-sysop remedy—it would avoid some loss of face and especially the RfA process at the end, which would perhaps avoid excess drama but also might not as closely reflect the community's current willingness to trust the editor with the tools again.

In any case, I think it's important to deal with the adminship misuse across the board and not attempt to single out any individual administrator for special treatment. alanyst ^/talk/ 07:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Viridae? Bit of a hothead maybe but not nearly the same level of issue. I think a "milestone" is an extremely novel and interesting remedy... I'd go further and say that the work would have to be in articlespace (Policy editing is one area where we have seen problematic behaviour) and OUTSIDE normal areas of interest (in SlimVirgin's case these favourite areas are where some of the problematic behaviours occur)... I suspect that none of these editors would pass an RfA even after completing the milestone, so the suspension is another novel and interesting remedy that shows this is not about punishment but about changing destructive behaviour. Tentative support for the idea while suggesting that maybe some more tweaking is needed. ++Lar: t/c 12:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1.1 as the sanest solution proposed so far in this case. dorftrottel (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper use of the admin tools is just one aspect of adminship. Another aspect is that administrators are expected to lead by example (see proposed principles here and here). But the most crucial aspect is the continuing trust by the community. More than enough evidence has been presented against each of the admin parties to cast some serious shadows on their trustability, as far as e.g. impartiality of their judgement in any given situation is concerned. Where trustability can reasonably be assumed to have considerably suffered, the community should be given the power and opportunity to determine whether or not it does in fact still trust that user to fulfill the community role of an admin. Unsuitability for the role of an admin does not necessarily involve any misuse of the tools. dorftrottel (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone shown a misuse of the administrative tools on SlimVirgin's part? There's plenty of evidence that has been provided of JayJG, Crum, and FM cherry picking SV's issues, but that's not the same as SV abusing the tools herself. --B (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Items 1, 2, 6, and 7 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Questionable user of administrator privileges (Cla68's section) seem like misuse to me, but not the other items listed in that section. The evidence by Shalom shows a tendency for SlimVirgin to protect user talk pages right after blocking the user, but I can see how this would be justified in some cases and unjustified in others, and the examples Shalom cites aren't black-and-white cases of misuse. Overall, I think there's some evidence of misuse by SV that can't be explained as an innocent mistake, but it is at a rather lower frequency than I first thought. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the evidence shows, especially in the case of SandyGeorgia, that SlimVirgin uses her status as administrator to bully others, especially new editors she is in conflict with. Yes, I know all about WP:DEAL, but that isn't the case here, especially where threats of administrative action are implied. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant admin tool abuse I see is by Viridae. Take into account also that Viridae isn't even a very active admin... In fact, I see little evidence that FM, Slim and JzG have even misused their tools.--MONGO 04:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a massive 23 improper speedy deletions in a two day period that would disagree with you - in addition to editing protected pages while in a dispute with the content multiple times, and at least one case of blank, redirect and protect... (and thats just off the top of my head) Viridae ^Talk 08:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WADR, if you don't see evidence of abuse, did you look? In my evidence section, I document repeated inappropriate use of the tools by FM and that's with only going back a year. Most of Viridae's evidence about JzG seems to be in order and reasonable evidence of abuse. --B (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think individually crafted remedies would be better than treating all equally. GRBerry 18:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I like (and agree with, usually) Viridae, I do think 1.1 is a good idea. giggy _(:O) 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin and JzG restricted from alleging harassment

2) SlimVirgin and JzG are indefinitely enjoined not to accuse any editor of harassing, trolling, stalking, or provoking them. Exceptions: they may report such behavior on AN/I, arbitration pages, or on an uninvolved administrator's talk page, and they may link to the accusation from the accused editor's talk page as a courteous notification.

2.1) As above, except that grievances are to be handled first by a special master appointed by the Committee, who will address the concern or escalate to the proper dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Number 2 is a very good idea. Cla68 (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. Provides a way to get situations resolved if harassment is indeed occurring, but aims to prevent talk page and project page discussions from becoming derailed with inappropriate accusations. alanyst ^/talk/ 07:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Prefer special master approach. AN/I?... that way lies drama. Suggest extending this to FeloniusMonk and Crum375 as well. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support special master approach as well. I personally don't think JzG should be included here though. dorftrottel (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the special master idea. en.wikipedia is getting to big to rely on the volunteer noticeboard system for the sort of special help needed in such cases. Perhaps several special masters (akin to non-committee checkusers or oversighters in numbers)? and enjoin them for certian cases only. I agree with Dorf that I don't know if JzG needs to be included here, maybe? I don't feel strongly. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, no. Even though I agree that the victim card is played far too often and I agree that legitimate criticism has been frequently dismissed as "Wikipedia Review trolling", the fact is that both of these editors, particularly SlimVirgin, have been subjected to harassment. Such a ruling as this gag order would open the floodgates. --B (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B, If I understand your concern, it's that if further actual harassment happens, the victim will be left with no recourse under this remedy. Am I restating it correctly? I thought both alternatives left a way for the sanctioned party to notify someone of the problem, but perhaps that wasn't clear enough. I certainly don't intend to make it easier for harassment to occur because of this remedy, so I very much appreciate the concern you raise. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a neutral, independent party who can evaluate claims of harassment so genuine ones can be legitimately dealt with, then there'd be good cause to stop the use of such claims elsewhere for political ends. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection...the arbcom can't regulate how people feel...if someone says they feel harassed, then that is how they feel.--MONGO 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is with saying it, not with feeling it. I think it's fair to say that the word 'harassment' has been overused a good deal, and sometimes to stifle legitimate criticism, e.g. by employing such claims after a prolonged, obstinate refusal to enter any debate in which questions as to suboptimal behaviour may be raised. Crying wolf has occured and where identified requires appropriate handling. 'Harassment' is a very serious allegation, never to be misused. dorftrottel (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is How I Feel doesn't mean I won't get in trouble if I say it here. If I feel some other user is something that's an unprintable epithet, I'm likely to get hauled in for violating WP:NPA for saying so, for instance. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not such a bad idea come to think of it.--72.196.5.215 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea if the harassment were to be stopped. Then when that was achieved we could talk about whether they were falsely alleging harassment. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather like saying that Tony should stop trolling, then we could talk about whether Tony is being falsely accused of trolling—a very concise example of begging the question, but distinctly unhelpful. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean first suppress any activity that somebody is alleging is "harassment", then discuss whether the allegations were correct or not? That sounds like the Alice in Wonderland criminal justice system, where they pronounce sentence first, then have the trial, and finally at the end of all that the actual crime is committed. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Alice in Wonderland part is that place known as Wikipedia Review, where fiction becomes fact and if enough people with an axe to grind repeat the same stupidities regularly enough, that even those with some vestige of sanity may ultimately become convinced that surely the excrement of what is uttered by the galactically insane somehow must be based on some sort of reality, no matter how initially retarded the original comments may appear to be.--MONGO 18:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} *Dan T.* (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, I despise WR as the equivalent to jerking off on a picture of someone jerking off, but... they didn't make all of that up. When you're constantly in the middle of drama, chances are, as the only recurring element, you have something to do with it. dorftrottel (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TMI. --B (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please just ignore Tony. He's only looking to stir things with his comments. He's doing it for the lulz, so to speak. Let's all deny him that success. dorftrottel (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - so someone who has been subject to incredibly extensive harassment[83] is forbidden to speak of it. And Lar took issue with me calling this a farce? Blame the victim, shall we? Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got a record of using accusations of harassment as a weapon to get the upper hand in battles, then some curbing of this is warranted even if there's some truth to some of the accusations. If there's some system whereby an unbiased mediator can examine claims that may prove to be genuine, then the claims can be kept out of other places where (true, false, or exaggerated) they can be used unfairly. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict.) Guettarda, do you honestly think that's what I'm suggesting? Let me be more clear. SV and JzG have indeed been harassed/trolled/stalked, we (and most everyone else) agree. SV and JzG have complained about being harassed/trolled/stalked. That's also well documented. It does not logically follow that every allegation of harassment/trolling/stalking by SV or JzG is well-founded. You might believe that every reported instance thus far has been well-founded; if we accept that premise, then this remedy would indeed be an outrageous one to propose. I believe the evidence shows a considerable number of cases where the allegations were not valid, and the consequence has been disruption and an increase in hostility among editors. If you accept this premise for the sake of argument, then a good remedy should try to prevent disruption due to spurious allegations, while permitting SV and JzG to call attention to actual abuse so it can be thwarted. That's my intent behind this remedy, and I'm in no way trying to blame them for the harassment they've had to endure, nor do I wish them to suffer in silence if it should happen again. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is hard to rule on, admittedly. However, the question is what is meant by harassment. In the case of Slim and JzG, while there was harassment done to them at times, they also frequently took criticism and mild complaints as harassment, causing an unhealthy atmosphere amongst them. Someone tagging your images which potentially having problems and letting you know of them, for example, is not harassment. The accusations of harassment happen so often that what qualifies as harassment to most Wikipedia editors is very different to what it qualifies as to them. If someone is legitimately harassing them, others will notice and take action pretty quickly, we've seen proof of that happening already many times. Wizardman 18:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Barberio

(These proposals are limited solely to the issue of the apparent "poisoning of the well" in Cla68's RFA. And are intended as compromise.)

Proposed Principle

Poisoning of the well

1.1) Administrators are warned to avoid creating situations which cause the failure of a wikipedia process and generate undue prejudice against individuals or groups in their future activities. Where this does happen, any editor may strike-out any comments raised based on this prejudice, with a note as to why they have done so, in line with standing policy of removing unsubstantiated attacks.

1.2) Administrators are warned to avoid creating situations which cause the failure of a wikipedia process and generate undue prejudice against individuals or groups in their future activities. Where this does happen, Administrators are required to take this into account when closing subsequent processes and reporting their results.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, self explanatory. --Barberio (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This goes to the heart of the case. It obviously isn't wrong to mention Cla68's promotion of attacks on a journalist, which are as far as any of us can tell completely baseless. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless? Hah! Viridae ^Talk 22:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just ignore Tony's trolling from here on out. dorftrottel (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not trolling, it's being coy. (which Tony rightly called me on) Either that, or Tony really sincerely believes a view of this case that seems to be diametrically opposed to what many others believe... ++Lar: t/c 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sincerely believe that a number of editors have grossly misread this case. This isn't a new experience for me; I've seen a lot of arbitration cases. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us may just wish so many of your comments didn't look like riddles, if the idea here is to get a clear picture. Mackan79 (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being utterly wrong about your over-expressed certainty at the MML casepages hasn't caused you to question the utility of having seen all these arbitration cases? Well, then that's the very definition of irrationality. Please, everyone, don't feed the Tony. He would like nothing better than for this case to descend into the chaos of MML. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "undue prejudice"? How do we know what will cause a process to fail? I don't think this is practically useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the spirit, but it's utterly unworkable. dorftrottel (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See 1.2 for an alternative. --Barberio (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It still amounts to advocating the enforcement of m:dick. Believe me, I fully agree with the spirit, but such things would require judgement and structure on a level not available to our project. Maybe this could work as a principle. dorftrottel (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Finding of Fact

Poisoning of the well in Cla68's RfA

2) There were anomalies and conduct in Cla68's RfA that, even assuming good faith, led to undue prejudice and "poisoning of the well" for future RfAs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, self explanatory. Neutral as to intent of any parties involved. --Barberio (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. Clear evidence that the majority of the case against Slim Virgin is based on a misconception, which only arbcom can debunk. Is WordBomb's paid trolling to be treated in good faith or not? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, are you honestly interpreting this finding as a comment about the conduct of Cla68? I read it as referring to the conduct of SlimVirgin et al. Also, what is the misconception you speak of? alanyst ^/talk/ 22:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore him, he's just trolling. dorftrottel (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how any of what Tony said follows from this proposal in any way. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support excluding SlimVirgin, in person or in meatpuppet, from any future RfA of Cla68. Support both this FoF and this one, with a prefererence for Barberio's since it strictly avoids any speculation, no matter how plausible it is, on whether there was off-wiki coordination conducted by SlimVirgin. dorftrottel (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the opposite of Dorf's proposal here, in order for SV to not be deadmin'd with appeal to the committee prior to Rfa (as others with her activities have been) she may get an Rfa on Cla68 passed as successful (however she does it, that doesn't end up with an emergency deadmin, i guess). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is ridiculous. Either SV has changed her opinion on Cla68, in which case she will not oppose his RfA anyways, or she has not, in which case you would force her to work against her better judgement. How that is supposed to have any positive effect is beyond me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With her unacceptable actions in Cla's RfA, she has demonstrated her inability / unwillingness to neutrally judge this issue and forfeit the invitation normally extended to all users to comment on it. dorftrottel (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dorf. she is unable to participate in a neutral, helpful way. Legitimate concerns with editors actions are fine, even illegitamate concerns (deletionist/inclusionist/self nom/whatever) are fine. It's the manipulation of the system using harrassement meme's known to be untrue that are the problem. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stated in my evidence section why Slim questioned Cla at his Rfa and as far as I was concerned, his answers were inadequate. I can't explain why Cla suddenly showed up at the Gary Weiss article...what the impetus was. But the subsequent events after the failed Rfa is what troubles me now...his following Slim around to various articles he has never shown any prior interests in and are wholly unrelated to his usual interests...that is Wikistalking...period...and had he not done such things, many that opposed him the first time around may very well have been interested in supporting him in an admin bid later on. I am deeply troubled by Cla68's ongoing campaign to get Slim one way or another. Why are some pretending that Cla68's Rfa is the only one that looked favorable to pass until some revelation was presented and editors became more aware that a candidate may not be a good one. It's not Slim's fault that Cla's Rfa failed...it's his fault for failing to explain himself adequately.--MONGO 05:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, could you state which articles you're talking about? The only one I'm aware of where he said anything relating to SV was Animal testing. At the same time, I have to wonder if you've actually looked at SV's interaction on these articles if you're wondering why Cla has taken issue. For one example, you can see her telling Viriditas to stop complaining that an editor wikistalked him to ALF here. This was similar to my initial experience where SV followed me to an obscure article, reverted three times in less than a half hour, and then told me to stop the nonsense about harassment and answer her questions once she decided to speak.[84] You don't seem to realize that there is an issue here, a real one, and that this kind of one-sided endorsement is just as offensive to some as the suggestions that other editors shouldn't be allowed to charge harassment. Mackan79 (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Remedy

Reversal of poisoning of the well in Cla68's RfA

3.1) A new RfA is to be opened nominating Cla68 for administrator. An archive of the previous voting, as it would have been when the normal time had expired will be presented, and unless contested will be taken as a weight of support. During discussion of the RfA, any editor may strike-out negative comments against Cla68 not supported with evidence.

3.2) A new RfA is to be opened nominating Cla68 for administrator. An archive of the previous voting, as it would have been when the normal time had expired will be presented, and unless contested will be taken as a weight of support. On closure of the RfA, it is strongly advised that opposition to the RfA only be taken into account if it is supported by evidence.

3.3) A new RfA is to be opened nominating Cla68 for administrator. An archive of the previous voting, as it would have been when the normal time had expired will be presented, and unless contested will be taken as a weight of support. Editors who made comments based solely on the misleading 'poisoning of the well' of the prior RfA shall be excluded from the process. --Barberio (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is a compromise, allowing Cla68 a fair shot at a second RfA, while removing the prejudice generated by the first one. This does not create a precedent of ArbCom being able to appoint administrators, since anyone may still cause the RfA to fail if they present sufficient evidence to sway opinion against it.

Note. I suspect this remedy could be implemented even without the direct approval of the Arbitration Committee, as it is simply an extension of the principle of removing unsubstantiated attacks, but it would make it much clearer that this is an acceptable compromise if they agreed with it. --Barberio (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. To unclear, to arbitrary, and an invitation to edit warring during a second RfA. Simply have a normal RfA, in the nomination link to the old RfA and this discussion, maybe with a few words from the nominator (not "any editor"), and let things take their due course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Used as a basis for alternative 3.2 --Barberio (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An arbcom order is not necessary. Cla68 can apply for adminship at any time. Any Wikipedian may nominate Cla68 for adminship at any time, and if he accepts the nomination the nomination will go to discussion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your justified concern that those who didn't display any basic decency in his first RfA might not show it in another RfA either. However, it's a recipe for disaster and utterly unworkable. dorftrottel (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the new alternatives. --Barberio (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still far too problematic. I can see the shit hitting the fan right now if any of this were to be approved. But again, I agree with the spirit. I would however agree to a proposal excluding SlimVirgin from any future RfA of Cla68, both in person and 'in meatpuppet' (maybe formulated as the principle that 'neither Wikipedia nor any of its processes are to be used as a battleground'). dorftrottel (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I support the intent here, I also don't think this is exactly right. An RfA is an RfA, and if an editor is in good standing then they should be allowed to comment. Trying to block points of view, whether we think they're valid or not, should be troubling. The complicating factor here at least in my view is the real problem: SV brought in so much opposition to Cla obviously because she's a very influential editor, regardless of how people got to the RfA. However, there is also strong belief that her editing has not been adequately evaluated, and if it were, that people would not so readily support her accusations against other editors. And of course the related problem is that continuing with the acceptance of this case, community evaluation of her editing is being prevented. In that light, the only way I can see resolving this is through some form of agreement: 1. RfCs or other community evaluations of SV's editing continue to be limited, 2. SV then makes certain concessions not to promote controversy, 3. Cla68 is granted adminship, with her agreement, which others would then likely accept. Of course the chances of SV agreeing to this is minimal, but some sort of compromise like this seems the only way you could really circumvent the RfA process. OTOH, without this type of concession, I do think some limitations on controversial editing need to happen partly in fairness to Cla68 and others; specifically with regard to an RfA just doesn't seem correct. Mackan79 (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truly terrible idea, this is. giggy _(:O) 01:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Stephan Schulz

Proposed principles

WP:IAR and WP:DICK

1) If a rule or procedure prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Don't be a dick.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed finding of facts

Mess of petty accusations

1) The presented mountains of evidence consists primarily of pointless quibbling and petty accusations. No sane person can be expected to sift through it, especially not on a volunteer basis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable people

1) Despite the pointless quibbling, most of the participants are positive contributors and can be expected to behave reasonably well even without massive ArbCom intervention.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Nothing to see here

1) Everybody is encouraged to continue to improve Wikipedia. Everybody is encouraged to grow a thicker skin. If in doubt assume good faith. De-escalate, don't escalate. Don't be a dick.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I don't see how any other decision will help the project. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with all of the findings of fact and remedies in this section. I do agree with the principle. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Kwsn

Proposed principles

Criticism and harassment

1) Criticizing one's actions does not constitute harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obvious. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As worded, the principle doesn't work imo because it assumes that only valid criticism has taken place, without elements which could be construed as harassment. Since 'harassment' is in the eye of the beholder and since with the right mindset almost anything can be construed as an attack or harassment, I think the wording should be tweaked to reflect the expectation that people make an effort to carefully distinguish between those things, even where aspects of both may be involved (also known as AGF). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The evidence is located here. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Civility Parole

1) JzG is put on civility parole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As I said above, telling uses to "fuck off" regardless of who they are is not acceptable. I'm only putting this back for a separate enforcement below. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin Banned

2) SlimVirgin is banned for one year. As such her adminship shall be removed and can only be restored via an RFA with arbcom's permission first.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think probation with clearly spelled-out standards of behavior plus required mentorship for one year is more appropriate. If she rejects the mentorship, however, or repeatedly (say, three times) violates the probationary stipulations, then I think a ban is probably the only real option remaining. Cla68 (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed. I was hoping it would not have to come to this, but it's becoming painfully obvious that she has no intention of straightening up. Her behavior has continued to be very poor even after it was shown in this case to be poor already. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I don't at all agree with this, but just out of curiosity, what happened that you are proposing now as opposed to a month ago? --B (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new evidence provided by Cla68 on the evidence page (it's at the top of his 2008 section). If she started shaping up after this case had started, I would have never proposed this. Secondly, the attacks here are horrendous. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, this looks like she's unwilling to adjust her behaviour so much as an inch. Inclined to support, but would be willing to see the results of the —according to common sense and evidence— inevitable desysopping. Maybe that will help pacify her. user:Everyme 01:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing? I just read the section that you guys linked and I don't see anything bad there at all unless she is just making the whole thing up. She is certainly entitled to her opinion about checkuser use. Personally, I'm very suspicious when it comes to checkuser and I've often only half-jokingly wondered how often I have been checkusered. --B (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only after you wring this keyboard from my cold, dead fingers. We don't ban good faith users, no matter how stubborn or misguided they might be. Many lesser remedies could be effective. Jehochman ^Talk 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come you supported the block of !! for the longest of times and told everyone to trust Durova's judgment with that block? Kwsn (Ni!) 23:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually think of several "good faith" users whom we've banned--users who believed they were right and believed they were doing what was best for the encyclopedia and for the universe. The problem was they were completely wrong and completely, unrepentantly disruptive, uncooperative and abusive, but I'm sure the meant well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) I don't think you're missing a thing, B. I think Kwsn is trolling. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone who proposes such nonsense as this, who states on their userpage that they are semi-retired and has only 50 edits in the last six weeks should be banned for a year for arrogance.--MONGO 01:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypocrisy. Unless you are suggesting that Durova, who has put a "resting" banner on her Userpage, but who inserts herself into any-and-every Wikipedia controversy, should likewise be "banned for arrogance". Oh never mind. The 'resting' note was put there so that when Company management looks at her page, and asks her to stop embarassing them, she can claim innocence. 85.3.67.229 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps: For gosh sakes, kick her (Slimvirgin) off. Long overdue. It's doing her a favor. And the world a public service. Really. 85.3.67.229 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE EVIL DAEMON "KWSN" HAS INSULTED THE GREAT PRINCESS SLIMVIRGIN AND FOR THAT HE SHOULD BE DRAWN AND QUARTERED AND HIS FAMILY KILLED!!!! Get a grip, MONGO. You're getting uppity over a computer website, and I have to resort to all-capital letters mocking your behavior in a condescending attempt to get you to return to reality. Just because he feels it's time someone is barred access to the website doesn't mean he's going to become a terrorist so that he can destroy Wikipedia to see that it's done.

Slim, I've never looked into your behavior. All that I've seen from you are Wikback forum posts. I won't pass almighty judgment on you as a person, nor on you as a contributor. I'm simply not educated enough on the matter.

The Committee, as elected by a generic population of English Wikipedia editors, will decide what they decide. The world will not end for it. Remember: you are on the computer. These people aren't holding you at gunpoint: your mind just makes you think they are. --harej 02:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love MONGO, I don't support this remedy. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... --harej 05:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grossly disproportionate remedy that doesn't even try to justify itself. If I wasn't assuming good faith, I might imagine that the proposer is trying to discredit those presenting the case. Agree with User:B. Cool Hand Luke 04:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do take this proposal serious. What with all the attempts to let her know that for the sake of collaboration and consensus she should ease off on the occasional (or frequent, depending on the area) antagonisation and personalisation, turning what could be simple and straightforward discussions into uselessly politicalised drama? That's a long-term behavioral issue that runs far deeper than just the self-evident unsuitability for the admin tools. user:Everyme 04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felonious Monk and Odd Nature banned and blocked

3) For abusive sock puppetry, Felonious Monk is banned for a month. Odd Nature is to be blocked indefinitely as FM's sock.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Parole enforcement

1) JzG may be blocked for uncivil remarks or gross assumptions of bad faith, with the block length being up to 3 days in certain cases. After 5 such blocks, the max block length shall extend to one week and will result in a 1 month suspension of adminship privileges. If he is blocked again after the block expires but his adminship is still suspended, the 1 month suspension shall reset. After 3 of such blocks, the block length extends to 1 month, and the suspension to 1 year. Again, after 3 more blocks, indefinite removal of adminship will occur and can only be reinstated by either ArbCom or via RFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ok, I put a new spin on the enforcement to have a better incentive for JzG to watch himself. Rather than a straight out desysop, this will hopefully make him think twice about his position as an admin and the comments he makes towards others. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the idea, but blocks such as these on long-standing contributors are drama-magnets. Particularly if they are for civility, as there's a lot of grey area. Better to desysop, frankly. Neıl 龱 23:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Irpen

This proposal takes into account facts on the ground and aims at backlog reduction through arbcom's admitting that it is unable to solve this case.

Proposed principles (Irpen)

Due care

1) The ArbCom is expected to exercise it's duties with due care and in a reasonably timely manner

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Obvious. Irpen 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious. I don't see this getting ringing endorsement though. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact (Irpen)

Lack of proposal

1) While this case is open for several months, arbitrators were unable to propose any solution, even a "bad" one, as the proposed decision page remains empty.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just facts. --Irpen 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience. --Jenny 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a finding of fact, this is true. But yes... Patience. For a while yet anyway. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of participation

2) Arbitrators took no part in the discussions aimed at resolving the controversy at the workshop either.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just facts. --Irpen 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moot. The workshop is primarily for community contributions. --Jenny 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains. Also, I very much disagree with your premise. In my understanding, ArbCom's purpose is to work with the community, not to lord it over us. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False dichotomy. Arbitrations ran without any workshops at all for nearly two years. They were instituted, as far as I'm aware, in order to encourage community input. --Jenny 13:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arbitration Committee. Everyme 13:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a finding of fact, this is true. But yes... Patience. For a while yet anyway. Some guidance from ArbCom about what is and isn't useful, what they do and don't need from us, etc., would help matters, though. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No chance of change

3) With arbitrators being unable to address this case in any way at all despite the case's being open for so long indicates that they will unlikely be able to address this case if given even more time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Willing to see the evidence to the contrary but for now there is none. --Irpen 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specious premise, poor grammar, atrocious reasoning. --Jenny 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tony. Besides, isn't all this something more suited for an open thread at WT:RFAR or WT:AC? Everyme 13:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not necessarily true, as it's predictive of capability or mental state. Patience. For a while yet anyway. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies (Irpen)

Case closed without decision

1) With arbcom being unable to solve this case it is announced closed without decision and matters are redirected back to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. There must be an end to it and if there is none and there can be none, let's say so and close the matter. --Irpen 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hurry, and a lot of valid evidence to consider. Everyme 03:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has festered for several years within the community and remains unresolved. The Committee has had it for a little over seven weeks. To remand it back to the community could only cause more damage. This problem must be resolved and only the Committee has the power to resolve it. --Jenny 07:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Committee has the power to resolve other matters that plague Wikipedia for years. Does not mean it is going to. No sign it is going to do anything here either. It is just more honest to acknowledge it openly than maintain this limbo. --Irpen 08:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are various dubious assumption in Tony's comment. If the problem has festered for years, Wikipedia has prospered in that time. So why must it be resolved? Given the recent display of miscommunication inside the committee, what makes you think they have the skill to solve it? And given the massive loss of trust in the committee, I find even the assumption that it has the power far from self-evident. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make a lot of sense. My TV doesn't work, but I'm still making enough money to survive. Does that mean that it's not worth getting a new TV? The two don't have anything to do with each other. Dealing with a problem admin is a net positive for Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not Wikipedia is capable of surviving the bad behavior of a bad admin. --B (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is interesting, since I'm without a TV for 2.5 years ;-)[1]. But your argument is flawed. Even granting the premise (which I'm not prepared to do right now), you're wrong about the net positive. Yes, dealing with a problematic admin is a good thing - all other things being equal. But all other things are not equal. ArbCom has, obviously, limited resources. If it handles this case, other cases linger or at least receive less scrutiny. Indeed, ArbComs internal processes need serious work, from which this case distracts. ArbCom needs to rebuild community trust after the OM debacle. It will be very hard to do so with a case like this, that has tons of evidence, much of it circumstantial, and no clearly right solution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] No offers of charity, please. My TV still is in working condition, and hooked up to a DVD player. It's just that I moved, and only later found out that the new flat has no cable, and no acceptable over-the-air reception. After a while I noted that I can do without TV quite well, and rather want to avoid the hassle of getting cable installed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're like this guy? :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If every arbcom member were spending every on-wiki moment handling other cases and had been doing so for the last 1.5 months, then the tradeoff argument would make sense. But they aren't and, in fact, have had time to dilly dally on the OM case and all of the other pronouncements from the mount. This is a serious case about serious abuse of the administrative tools and arbcom closing its eyes and humming really loudly isn't going to solve the problem. --B (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. This case is too important to just close. Heroic efforts to get ArbCom to act are called for. Tony is 100% right about this problem having festered for a while now... even if he's wrong about some of what the problem actually is or how to solve it. ++Lar: t/c 17:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Jenny

Proposed findings of fact

Cla68's and attack material

1) Cla68 has inappropriately introduced and promoted attacks on Wikipedians and on outsiders on Wikipedia, and continued after being told to stop (See evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

per evidence cited. --Jenny 18:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out the problems with others' behavior is not an "attack". *Dan T.* (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the word "attack" in its primary meaning here: an action intended to cause harm. --Jenny 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may support on one condition. Include SV, cause she has done the exact same thing in the past. Then, maybe then, I'll support this. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC) One other thing, Gary is banned right now. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 and assumptions of bad faith

2) Apparently motivated by offsite attacks on Wikipedians and others, Cla68 has repeatedly made personal attacks on, and assumed bad faith on the part of, those Wikipedians and other individuals. (See evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

per evidence cited. --Jenny 18:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out issues with others' behavior is something which can be done with the best of faith. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Dan's comment on my proposed finding 1. Note also the name of this proposed finding, which was chosen carefully and with an eye to the evidence presented. --Jenny 22:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offsite orchestration

3) There is evidence of a considerable and longrunning campaign of orchestrated offsite attacks against selected Wikipedians in good standing, including SlimVirgin. There is reason to believe that a number of Wikipedians in good standing have been influenced by, or may even have actively participated in, those attacks (see evidence). .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

per evidence cited. --Jenny 18:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence of considerable and longrunning abuse by SlimVirgin and her friends, against which others are fighting back. Much of this fighting has had to be done offsite due to the extent to which Slim's group has been successful in squelching commentary on the subject onsite. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a fact...seems like you and the rest of the WR crowd have had nothing but free rein to say almost anything you want about SlimVirgin and her "group". There hasn't been any "fighting" offsite...all see is a core group of idiots dead set on finding some way to get SlimVirgin. The supposed good intentioned admins who edit the WR website...I almost never see them defend anyone unless it is one of their own. There are exceptions to this of course, but overall, WR looks like simply a sounding board used for the furtherance and perpetuation of what most rational people would say is a lot of hearsay.--MONGO 17:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have never participated in WR or any other attack site, and I've learned a long time ago to not trust them on anything. I strongly despise WR and the people who contribute there. I see no contradiction whatsoever between (i) me acknowledging the existence of appalling harassment and outing attempts against her and others and (ii) agreeing that there are major problems with some of e.g. SlimVirgin's behaviour on Wikipedia which merit strong remedies. Simply accusing me (and for all practical pruposes all other people who are concerned about her on-wiki behaviour) of being influenced by WR, or worse, of active participation in any of it is truly shocking, Tony. I didn't expect you to stoop that low. Trying to make this all about WR is bad and transparent enough a tactic in its own right — but lumping everyone who has legitimate concerns in with the worst attack sites people, just to discredit the definite legitimacy of the concerns some people have? Unbelievable. Tony Sidaway, you should be ashamed of yourself. user:Everyme 17:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely don't claim that all people who have an issue with SlimVirgin's conduct are parties to the attack forum or are unduly influenced by it. Nor does what I have said imply this, nor do I believe this. The truth of my denial here will become evident upon a reading of the words of my proposed finding of fact above. --Jenny 17:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep digging, you're already on your way to the surface again. user:Everyme 17:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find these attacks as repugnant as they are inexplicable. Issue taken to user talk page. [85] --Jenny 18:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68's stated motivation

3) Cla68 has stated that his aim in being involved with Wikipedia Review is to "improve Wikipedia" by causing "permanent damage" to the wiki-reputations of certain named editors and by editing articles to act as an active conduit for external attacks. (see evidence)

3.1) Cla68 has stated that his aim in being involved with Wikipedia Review is to "improve Wikipedia" by acting as an active conduit for external attacks. (see evidence)

(I have made no proposal 3.2--left blank to avoid confusion with another's proposal)

Cla68's proxying and advocacy

3.3) Cla68 has deliberately imported material intended to harm Wikipedians and others, produced by banned users, into Wikipedia, and advocates for this as a desirable activity, noting that he has, in his view, tarnished the reputation of a journalist and two named Wikipedians, and claiming that by doing so he has improved Wikipedia. (see evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

per evidence cited. --Jenny 17:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the evidence, Cla should be commended for this. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is such a twisted reading of Cla68's words, that I'm starting to find it nearly impossible to AGF when it comes to Tony's contributions here. I've tried to stay clear of this case, but when someone is so persistently and blatantly misrepresenting someone else's words, I have to chime in. Here is the specific post to which Tony is preferring, other than the words "permanent damage" and "improve Wikipedia", the above stated summary is a complete misrepresentation of Cla's words. I've further examined some of Tony's other evidence against Cla, and found similar misrepresentations in his summaries. I may expand on his other evidence later, if I have time, but I encourage others to follow Tony's links and verify that his summaries actually reflect what Cla said. ATren (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, please stop intentionally and blatantly lying to the committee and community - nothing in that post describes his intention that way. The source that you are misrepresenting is here. Cla is describing the end result of what happened because he took off some blinders and read a series of things, starting with an article here, passing through Wikipedia review, and eventually going further. Then he edited, SlimVirgin was abusive, and in the end many editors have realized that it is wrong to blindly trust SV's judgment, as she is abusive at times. I wish more editors would read Wikipedia Review, it would help us to get rid of abusive administrators faster. (And I say this as an admin that has been, criticized, praised, and had some of my private information published over there.) Indeed, this is evidence that Cla should be praised for having read that site, because Wikipedia is better today because he did. GRBerry 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do expand. I have absolutely no intention of misrepresenting anyone here. Cla68's words, in full, are:

As for the value of WR, let me tell you my story. In the fall of 2006 I had been an active participant in Wikipedia for about nine months and by that time had nominated about eight or nine articles for featured status. I hadn't had any negative experiences. I had been working in the congenial atmosphere of the Military History project which was humming along under Kirill Lokshin's effective leadership.

I was bored one day sitting in front of my computer, so I decided to see if there was a dark side to this project thing I had been participating in. So I typed "criticism of Wikipedia" into Google. The Wikipedia article came up and I read it. It had a link to Wikitruth.info which I followed. Wikitruth had a link to this forum. Here in this forum I read a thread with a link to AntiSocialMedia.net. I followed that link and read some interesting information which made me angry. So, I went to the Gary Weiss article in Wikipedia and started editing, and I think you all know the rest of the story.

Although it took some time, the end result was that an obscure financial reporter no longer can use Wikipedia to promote his view of naked short selling and use Wikipedia to attack a Utah web company and CEO he doesn't like. And SlimVirgin, David Gerard, and few other Wikipedia admins have deservedly taken what is probably some permanent damage to their on-wiki reputations and credibility.

WR has helped improve Wikipedia.

I see no other reasonable interpretation of his words, but I could be persuaded otherwise. It seems to me that he is saying that he deliberately sought out and imported attacks on Wikipedians, and that he deliberately and knowingly imported attack material into Gary Weiss. --Jenny 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His motivation was to right something he believed was wrong. In the process, he came into conflict with other editors whom he believed vigorously and abusively defended that wrong. History has shown Cla was largely correct in his actions: the abusive editors on both sides of that conflict are now banned, and the editors who spent many months defending one of those abusive editors (in the face of mounting evidence both on-Wiki and off) suffered damage to their reputations. To state that Cla's intent was to damage reputations is absurd; however, given the damage caused by that prolonged conflict (in which Cla and others were exonerated), is it such a stretch to say that some editors' reputations were rightly damaged as a result of that needless conflict, that could have been resolved many months earlier if one of those editors had bothered to look at the evidence? ATren (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't wash. You don't right a wrong by promoting abusive attacks on Wikipedians and on third parties, and trying to assert abusive attacks into biographies of living persons when BLP concerns have been expressed. I see no suggestion that Cla68's abusive actions were in any way excusable, let alone exonerated. Cla68's actions did cause damage to reputations, and here he is expressing satisfaction that they did so. I see no reason not to assume that when an editor deliberately goes against policy to insert attack material into an article he is doing so in order to promote the attack. The Wikipedia Review posting is just the smoking gun in what is really a pretty obvious case of an editor abusing Wikipedia resources to advance external attacks. --Jenny 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting off this Merry-go-round now. Your interpretation is fundamentally wrong. ATren (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mildly observe that causing damage to a reputation is not an inherent violation of WP policy or even a bad thing in many cases; after all, we identify users as sockpuppets, SPAs, and so forth, and this certainly causes damage to those editors' reputations. When the evidence was presented that Mantanmoreland was socking, his reputation was damaged, and it was irreparably destroyed when FT2 noted the checkuser evidence of continued socking. That was a good thing. If the editors that Cla68 had concerns about were indeed abusing their positions of trust, their reputations of trustworthiness should rightly have been damaged. (Please note the conditional in this last sentence.) alanyst ^/talk/ 18:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68's posting made no reference to socking. Instead he advanced claims he found on an external website about the alleged identity of Mantanmoreland. He attempted to damage a real life reputation on the basis of some nonsense he read on a scurrilous and defamatory website, and he abused Wikimedia resources the minute he repeated that attack on Wikipedia. --Jenny 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I thought it was damage to Wikipedia editors' reputations that Cla68 was talking about in your quote from WR, not real life reputations; where did he admit to seeking to do the latter? Regarding Mantanmoreland, the allegations of his identity, if true, would have implied clear on-wiki violations of WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:BATTLE. Is it an abuse of Wikipedia resources to expose abuses of Wikipedia resources? (My answer to this question would be: it depends on how it's done; but this applies to SlimVirgin, FeloniousMonk, JzG, Viridae, and all other editors; not just Cla68.) alanyst ^/talk/ 18:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my proposed principle 3 on "The ends do not justify the means". Cla68 repeats a damaging allegation about a real person (so obviously he's openly seeking to damage that person's reputation). He also cites the damage to on-wiki reputations as motivation for posting to Wikipedia Review. In another posting I have cited a few times, Cla68 even goes so far as to claim that our "Verifiability not truth" standard exists expressly "to allow POV-pushing by some of its proponents, including SV". [86]. He's out to cause damage by making wild personal attacks on a forum where such claims are lapped up and applauded. --Jenny 18:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As others have, I will withdraw now, simply noting that you continue to assume your conclusion as a basis for interpreting the evidence, and unless you have privileged insight into Cla68's motivations, you are simply ignoring the equally convincing good-faith interpretation that others have offered for Cla68's behavior and remarks. You have the last word. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my new proposal, 3.1. --Jenny 18:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See 3.2, which has the advantage of being accurate. GRBerry 19:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you made your own proposals where they will not be mistakenly be assumed to have been written by me. I have removed 3.2 because it falsely accuses SlimVirgin of defending attacks on living people. I will not have that false accusation associated with me in any way. --Jenny 19:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She did, as plenty of evidence in the Mantanmoreland case, and linked from this case proves. Yet you are perfectly willing to make false accusations about Cla. Your hypocrisy is showing... GRBerry 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is evidence to support your claim, make your own proposal in an appropriate area of the workshop. Do not assume that I have seen the evidence you allude to, or would agree with your interpretation of it any more than you agree with my interpretation of the evidence I cite here. --Jenny 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misreading. He didn't say his "goal" was to damage their reputations or that this was somehow the benefit. To rephrase, the benefit is that an individual is no longer abusing Wikipedia. This was aided by WR due to the failures of those handling the situation on Wikipedia. In sum, WR helped, and the idea that Wikipedia's own guardians of this situation were handling it appropriately on their own was damaged. Whether Cla68 would say this differently, the idea that "He's saying he wanted to hurt them" is hardly supported. Regarding acting as a "conduit," I'm not sure what it refers to. The real argument appears to be that nothing that is said on WR should ever be examined on Wikipedia, and accordingly that anyone who does this is a "conduit." Obviously many disagree with that to varying degrees. In any case, the accurate finding would be "Cla68 has said that WR has helped expose abuse on Wikipedia," or similar, but then I don't exactly see the need for that either. Mackan79 (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well at best we know that the arbitration committee successfully transformed a torches-and-pitchforks affair, precipitated by some misguided Wikipedians paying inappropriate attention to activities on some attack sites, into a relatively sane and calm appraisal of the evidence and some appropriately modest editing restrictions. The recidivist editor was then duly caught blatantly socking on checkuser evidence, and was banned without a single tear being shed. It's not Wikipedia Review that we need to thank for what happened, but the Arbitration Committee for thwarting the activities of a rabble through a relatively benign procedure.

When I describe Cla68 as a willing conduit, I mean that he deliberately and knowingly introduced attack material into Wikipedia, intending it to harm Wikipedians and others. His own statements on this are unequivocal and damning. ---Jenny 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone take anything Tony says seriously anymore? I can't believe so much time and effort is wasted on one of Wikipedia's most notable drama-mongers. DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reg is currently attempting to "take DuncanHill to task" on DH's talkpage. Does having your username on an ArbCom allow you to have opinions given of the motives, standing, and good faith of your contributions to the encyclopedia - while those who make such comments, be they ever so dismissed by all respondees, are allowed to complain bitterly when such comments are directed at themselves? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. We're here discussing what Cla68 has stated explicitly about his reasons for posting on, and reading, attack sites, and for importing attacks from those sites onto Wikipedia. Those are material to the case because they demonstrate that he is aware that he is damaging reputations and, indeed, he expresses satisfaction at doing so. What Duncan Hill thinks of me is something Duncan Hill is encouraged (by wikipedia official policy) to keep to himself. --Jenny 22:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, your assessment about "explicit" statements is flatly incorrect, as has been pointed out above. Besides that, unless you're saying that Cla68's accusations on Wikipedia have violated NPA (which isn't what you are saying here), then honestly all I see is an outdated argument that Wikipedia editors shouldn't be allowed to participate in or mention anything that happens at WR, at least regarding those who are determined to have been abused there. It isn't a defensible idea, and so far as I can see has only been raised here to obscure Cla68's RfC; if this wasn't initially by you, you've certainly brought the notion much further than it would have gone otherwise. Mackan79 (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go through it again. Cla68 has explicitly stated that he went looking for dirt about Wikipedia. Cla68 has explicitly stated that, armed with that dirt, he went to edit Gary Weiss. Cla68 has explicitly drawn a libellous connection between a Wikipedia editor and a journalist, based on information he found on a scurrilous attack site. Cla68 has explicitly expressed satisfaction at the harm he believes he has done to reputations, based on that unreliable and hateful attack material. This is why I say LessHeard vanU is arguing "apples and oranges". And it's why I say that Cla68 has done harm to Wikipedia. --Jenny 22:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not libellous to state that a user is a given person, especially given the ~~overwhelming~~ massive evidence in this case. 205.241.49.130 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's libellous to state that a given person abused Wikipedia, if there's little or no evidence that he has done so. I believe the cited evidence pertained to such observations as a certain editor's interest in a town in India, and his decision to edit Wikipedia after 0800 GMT once or twice. If that evidence convinced anybody I've got a bridge for sale. --Jenny 02:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this bridge run from Japan to Utah? Because in that case I think I know someone who might buy into it. ;-) ATren (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've drafted 3.3 as a less interpretive form of the proposed finding. It contains the same facts, from the same evidence, but the wording speaks less to his stated motivation and more to his advocacy. Note new title.--Jenny 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Rootology

Proposed principles

Disruption of official Wikipedia business is not acceptable

1) Disrupting important Wikipedia functions and business, such as arbitration and dispute resolution, is not acceptable at any time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. rootology (T) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Tony Sidaway is disruptive on Arbcom cases

1) Tony Sidaway as User:RegenerateThis has tenditiously edited and disruptively trolled Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, and was nearly sanctioned on the previous IRC RFAR for disruption[87]. Due in part to his interpersonal skills[88], he was previously made to withdraw his adminship and status as an arbcom clerk due to his previous disruptions in Wikipedia project space. He is under sanction due to his actions related to this against being incivil or assuming bad faith and will be blocked for it.[89] On this RFAR, Tony posted an extensive evidence section that for a significant amount of time was an unsourced tirade that he defended as evidence on he grounds that his opinions needed to be known. However, when another user did a similar thing, Tony labeled it an attack and utterly failed to AGF in violation of his sanction that requires him to do so or be blocked.[90] Tony is a fine content editor in the main space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. rootology (T) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rootology...you were banned for what, two years, from this website...do you think you're in a position of trust enough yet to be posting remedies regarding someone else? You used the account XP to disrupt another arbcom case after you were banned at RFAr MONGO. You evaded your banning then and have been alllowed by the committee to resume editing based on a huge AGF on their part and mine. It certainly seems arrogant that you would be under the assumption that you have some right now to be posting efforts to sanction others (such as TonySidaway)...who BTW, once aided myself and others in trying to defeat the harassment you were so violently bent on some time ago.--MONGO 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, that's an ad hominem argument, which is precisely what this case doesn't need more of. Might I suggest addressing the substance of the proposal, not the person making it? alanyst ^/talk/ 22:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus it's kinda dirty pool, since apparently Rootology can't respond to anything you say. Personally, I think it's admirable how quickly Rootology has shown he is able to participate here, civilly and constructively. Formerly banned user or not, I trust his assessment of this case... or at least I trust it more than some other participants here... who all seem to be rather high on BADSITES rhetoric and rather low on acknowledgement that there are problems ON SITE that need to be dealt with. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to assume good faith of Rootology and indeed, I supported his unbanning after consultation with the committee...so I am a little chagrined that less than 2 months after I endorsed Rootology's return, he is now busy trying to get sanction against someone that he previously had dealings with prior to his banning and that his banning was explicitly due to on and offsite harassment that Tony was trying to protect me from. Do I think Tony should be removed from arbitration proceedings...or that he is trolling as has been described...no. Would I feel differently about this matter if someone other than Rootology had posted these resolutions...no.--MONGO 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You realise, I hope, that something getting consensus here doesn't actually mean it will pass the Arb vote, right? It's just a proposal. (And one which I support.) —Giggy 09:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support this finding. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this is within the scope of this case. An injunction to prevent him from commenting on this particular case is one thing (and might be worth considering if we expect the case to go on for more than another six months or so), but I otherwise can't see how this relates, unless we want to move this to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editors who participate in Wikipedia Review and those who dislike Wikipedia Review, and other editors affiliated with editors in either of the first two categories. Not that we're not already halfway there, mind you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered if somebody would take me up on the comment about User:Alecmconroy's speech. My reply is that the evidence I have recently placed on the evidence page is all public, its existence and nature was well known when I alluded to it, and I was at least confident that the Committee, having been through the Mantanmoreland case, would know exactly what I was talking about. There is also a problem to do with deleted revisions, and the fact that some of this evidence may be considered somewhat sensitive. In the end I bit the bullet and posted it all. But everybody knew it existed before I posted it (though there were denials right up to the point at which I posted it). Alec's attacks, however, seem to be evidence-free.

I'm sure the Committee will form an opinion on whether my own evidence is sound, and a further opinion on whether it is pertinent to the case (we're all in the dark on this matter so we're all in the same boat). Needless to say it's all furnished in good faith and with the intention of throwing light on some otherwise puzzling events and attitudes expressed on the talk page of the proposed decision (which as far as I'm aware are very distant from any accurate expression of community consensus). --Jenny 23:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. user:Everyme 05:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Tony Sidaway banned from Arbitration

1.1) Given his history of disruption and tenditious editing on Arbitration cases, Tony may not post more than three (3) times per day (24 hour period) on any opened Arbitration case where he is not a named party, on any theoretical combination of main pages or talk pages. He is free to submit evidence in private to the Committee by email to minimize public disruption. Tony may not add himself to any case as a named party without the explicit permission of the Arbitration Committee, unless he is the initiator of the case from its original posting on WP:RFAR. If Tony posts more than three times per day, barring minor editing/tweaking of his preceding "major" comments, as judged by uninvolved administrators, he will be blocked for up to 24 hours for the each violation, up to one week for repeated violations.

1.2) Given his history of disruption and tenditious editing on Arbitration cases, Tony may be banned from editing or commenting on any open Arbitration case by any uninvolved Administrator. He is free to submit evidence in private to the Committee by email to minimize public disruption. Tony may not add himself to any case as a named party without the explicit permission of the Arbitration Committee, unless he is the initiator of the case from its original posting on WP:RFAR.

1.3) Given his history of disruption and tenditious editing on Arbitration cases, Tony may be banned from editing or commenting on any open Arbitration case by any Arbitration committee clerk. He is free to submit evidence in private to the Committee by email to minimize public disruption. Tony may not add himself to any case as a named party without the explicit permission of the Arbitration Committee, unless he is the initiator of the case from its original posting on WP:RFAR.

1.4) Given his history of disruption and tenditious editing on Arbitration cases, Tony may not participate on any opened Arbitration case where he is not a named party, on main pages or talk pages. He is free to submit evidence in private to the Committee by email to minimize public disruption. Tony may not add himself to any case as a named party without the explicit permission of the Arbitration Committee, unless he is the initiator of the case from its original posting on WP:RFAR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, a variety of options. rootology (T) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably 1.4. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.3 is the least drama prone, though I'm not sure I like any of these. feh. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rootology evaded his prior arbcom banning based on remedies at RFAr MONGO...he used the account XP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to disrupt another arbitration case. He was subsequently blocked indefinitely again. It certainly seems arrogant that Rootology, who has been allowed to resume editing by the arbtration committee and myself, to propse remedies against someone else who once worked hard to help myself and others defeat his harassment.--MONGO 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, you say that you "allowed" Rootology to resume editing. Do you feel that you exercise some sort of power over how Rootology edits including that he edit in a way that is approved specifically by you? Cla68 (talk) 05:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was a banned editor...banned at the conclusion of an arbcom case he brought forth. I will not repeat what the discussions were that led me to agree with the committee to give him another chance, but I was hoping that he would stick to article space unless a dispute arose that specifically named him and other parties. Having him here now, proposing sanctions be brought on someone who he previously had disagreements with seems rather presumptuous, especially considering that neither he nor Jenny are named parties in this case.--MONGO 05:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Rootology's history is relevant here. --Jenny 23:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should pass the FoF above, but not this remedy, pretty much because of the comment I'm posting under. —Giggy 09:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1.4 But should the evidence be posted to the evidence page by an arb or clerk? Otherwise people have no idea what they have to respond to. Viridae ^Talk 00:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did consider emailing my most recent tranche of evidence to the committee. The offsite attack material is pretty rank, you know, and had I chosen to go into that in detail it might have been better done in email. On the other hand I don't like to do that. I sometimes send opinion to arbcom-l (I have opinions to spare) but I don't think I've often sent evidence. --Jenny 00:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support 1.4~~ user:Everyme 05:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC) (Struck per MONGO's reasonable points.)[reply]

No, oppose strongly. We should never ban someone for polite disagreement, even if that disagreement is completely unsupported by the evidence. Look, it's annoying to see Tony create outrageous phantom motives for Cla, but if that's what he truly believes he should be allowed to say it. I suggest we all just concisely disagree with his claims, and then ignore the protracted debate that inevitably follows. ATren (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ATren. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And ignore/accept the personal attacks he makes? No thanks; others aren't granted that much leeway, why should Tony be an exception? user:Everyme 08:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of making personal attacks. Of course making such attacks is wrong, and may be sanctionable. --Jenny 10:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modest proposals by User:Shii

Proposed findings of fact

SlimVirgin has been a great help to Wikipedia

1) SlimVirgin has been editing Wikipedia for over 100 years and her handling of difficult situations has been invaluable. She has proven herself able to handle situations of great stress.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think it's at least 1000 years by now. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure it's not over 9000 years? —Giggy 04:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin equates Wikipedia attacks to her "livelihood"

1) Although she never released her personal information to Wikipedia, SlimVirgin announced her belief that personal attacks and edit-stalking are a threat to her "livelihood".[91] She then gave an example of this with a hypothetical job interview.[92]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

If her interview is for a position as a member of a comedy troupe, perhaps she would have some success at it. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin thinks Wikipedia is her "life"

1) SlimVirgin wrote of a blocked editor that he "spent much of his life insulting me." [93] While this statement may be valid, most people do not spend all their time editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I wouldn't know what a "life" is myself... I've never had one. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

SlimVirgin awarded a free trip to Bermuda

1) The Wikimedia Foundation is instructed to give SlimVirgin a free trip to Bermuda and pay for her to stay there as long as she likes, provided she does not use a computer during her stay. The Wikimedia Foundation will also pay for SlimVirgin to have infinite martinis. SlimVirgin may return to Wikipedia as soon as she promises not to post any more hypothetical job interviews to WP:AN/I.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In case she has a different preference in exotic destinations, perhaps this should be amended to permit her to choose any island of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps the most beneficial remedy ever proposed. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a weird sort of way, this remedy makes a heck of a lot of sense. Give SV some time away from Wikipedia so she can relax and enjoy herself. When she comes back, her mind will be clear from an harassment and she can go back to being a productive editor. I just hope it works if it's approved, because this could be a possibility on other cases as well. Wizardman 01:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This idea can and should be bundled with William M. Connelley's brilliant SlimVirgin commended remedy (which I have enthusiastically supported). I very much like the idea of the ArbCommittee issuing prizes, game show-style--but I think they have too much on their plate already, such as vigorous thumb-twiddling, dismissing their best clerks and endlessly procrastinating the resolution of festering community issues.

I also question whether Jimbo et al have the budget for such a lavish rewards.... [94]. If not, I'd be happy to pitch in a few bucks.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not a serious remedy. But if the WMF can con TFMWNCB out of some cash to further this, I'm all for doing that. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we maintain a level of decorum here? Seriously. All of these proposals are trolling. --B (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. I mean, it sounds like it on the surface, but it's an elaborate way of saying "Slim taking a break from WP would be a benefit to her ability to edit in the project, her personal wellness, and the wellness of wikipedia" Granted, that same remedy could probably be applied to a LOT of wikipedia users. Wizardman 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support [1] SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Query: Does “infinite martinis” refer to multiple martinis each of which is infinite, or to an infinite number of martinis each of which may be finite? —SlamDiego_←T 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:SlamDiego

Proposed remedies

Mutual non-administration

1) Each involved party is henceforth banned from using such administrative tools as blocking, unblocking, protecting, unprotecting, and checkuser in any dispute or conflict directly involving any other party to this arbitration. However, none is thus injoined from using talk pages, noticeboards, and Requests to argue for some other administrator to use such tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I hope for such a ban to reduce allegations and actualizations both of stalking and of tag-teaming. No presumption is made that any party will or will not remain an administrator, will be made an administrator, or will have administration restored after it is lost, but the ban is to obtain during any intervals when any of these parties have administrative privileges. —SlamDiego_←T 00:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Daniel

Proposed remedies

Standing committee

1) The Arbitration Committee will appoint a standing committee to be composed of five administrators, formed from the Arbitration Committee itself, Arbitration Committee emeritus members, and up to two experienced administrators, at the Arbitration Committee's discretion. This committee is empowered to review the actions, both editorial and administrative, of FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Viridae (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with a particular focus on personal attacks, incivility, and administrative concerns.

The committee is empowered to place blocks of up to one month where a majority of its members (ie. three of five) support it; these blocks can only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee itself, and cannot be overturned by any administrator without the prior explicit approval of the Arbitration Committee. Furthermore, with the support of four of its five members, the standing committee may initiate a recall discussion for any of the administrators covered in this remedy, whereby they would be required to undergo a hybrid process designed to reconfirm their adminship. If less than 50% of eligible users - to be defined by the standing committee if/when the process is required - supports retaining the user as an administrator, they will be desysopped without prejudice to a new requests for adminship or appeal to the Arbitration Committee.

The standing committee will act out of a private mailing list to prevent disruption and allow relative freedom of thought and expression. All discussions about possible blocks and recall proceedings will take place there. However, in the interests of transparency, all blocks and recalls must be signed off at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Standing committee by the required number of members to ensure that any action is truly authorised by the standing committee.

The Arbitration Committee wishes to emphasise that the blocking provisions included in this remedy does not preclude normal administrative action against these contributors, eg. blocks for incivility. Such action will take the normal route of discussion and appeal at the administrators' noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Creative, but convoluted. I don't see sufficient reason to treat these five editors differently from all of the others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the usual processes are clearly failing/have clearly failed to resolve this complex dispute, and the convoluted nature of the remedy is necessary given the equally-convoluted nature of the dispute (in my opinion). Daniel (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Daniel (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar "committee empowerment" doesn't seem to be going so well in other cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Newyorkbrad

Proposed principles

These principles are a working draft for a proposed decision in this case. They include a few concepts suggested by other arbitrators, but the form and the wording are primarily mine. Some of the formulations are standard, some are modified, some are novel at least in this form. In evaluating the proposals, I urge editors not to view them simply from the lens of "does this formulation support my side of the dispute?" or "who is going to win the case?" It is amply evident by now that this protracted series of disputes and the negativity created by them can produce no winners. There is no intent here to signal the remedies that will result from the case, and in any event, any proposals I make will be subject to the vote of, and to alternative proposals offered by, at least eight other active arbitrators. Rather, please read and comment on the proposed principles from the point of view of "are these words we can live by? If everyone here abided by these principles, would Wikipedia be a better project, and would its community enjoy higher morale?" I believe that the answer to these questions is yes. Comments as to the principles' substance, appropriateness, clarify, form, wording, all are invited. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. (Please see my introductory note above regarding all proposals.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Utopian but worth fighting for.--MONGO 02:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia. This requires an atmosphere of camaraderia and mutual respect among all contributers. Hugs and whatnot aren't the purpose, but they are necessary. Explicit reasoning makes it clearer, I think. WilyD 14:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decorum

2) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed...we need to get away from the "but he/she started it" mentality.--MONGO 02:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy and civility

3) Editors should behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable. These norms, applicable to all editors, are especially applicable to administrators, who should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disputes among contributors

4) Wikipedia exists only because of the community that creates and maintains it. Disagreements between editors on a wide variety of issues frequently occur. The airing of disagreements in a respectful and sincere manner for the purpose of resolution is normal and indeed desirable in any such collaborative project. Where disputes cannot be resolved amicably through the ordinary course of editing and discussion, the project's dispute resolution mechanisms may be used.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unnecessarily divisive behavior

5) Behavior tending to cause unnecessary division or strife within the Wikipedia community is considered harmful. Examples of such behavior may include interfering with the consensus process through inappropriate canvassing, undue off-wiki coordination, coordinated "meatpuppetry", or factional voting; compilation of public lists of grudges or opponents; "ownership" of articles by self-appointed individuals or groups; warnings given for inappropriate reasons; threats; and misuse of administrator or other privileges granted by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The reference to "compilation of public lists of grudges or opponents" is vague and needs refining. Define "public". Is a subpage in my userspace public, if I don't broadcast links to it... but someone watching my contribs runs across it? Define "lists of grudges or opponents". Data for RfAs can take a while to compile; what if I do so in my userspace, including gathering evidence? Perhaps this is all self-evident, but lack of specificity leaves room for bad-faith attacks on good-faith efforts. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 08:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.104.177 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2008

Perhaps "bad-faith compilation", while somewhat hand-wavy, would be better? David Mestel^(Talk) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sub-page in your userspace is public. It's disingenuous to say you haven't "broadcasted" it, when you've made it part of the sixth-most visited website in the world. It's visible through both of the Prefix listing and your contribution history, both of which are in the public space. And using "bad-faith" doesn't help either, of course everyone is compiling a "good-faith" account of someone else's transgressions. The only option for a negative user sub-page should be "use it or lose it" - if it's intended as an imminent submission to a higher forum, do it quick; otherwise, keep it on your own indisputably non-public computer. Franamax (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The worst of a bad lot (but 15 and 16 are close). You're trying to institutionalise hypocrisy and the burying of heads in sand. Communication, organisation and canvassing are not going to stop because you say they're harmful (regardless of whether it's true). The wikipedia review clique, or the irc clique, or the secret mailing list clique, (I'm not saying these exist, because I don't know) won't simply disband and move their whiny accusations into project space. How can they? The atmosphere here is stultifying and forbids any kind of honest discussion. Making more rules about what people may and may not do everywhere else on the internet will not improve civility. Off-site communication will become more obscure and almost certainly worse.

Cliques and organisations should be transparent and explicit. Wikipedia review has no good reason to exist (plus it's kind of a shithole). What I mean by that is: everything that's on wikipedia review should be on wikipedia, because it will not go away. In project space, where there are no rules. And the same for every other group of editors who refuse to communicate on wikipedia. This proposal will make the situation worse, and as long as WP:Assume Good Faith and WP:Civil are in their current form, the problem will continue. This has something to do with what I'm saying, but I'm not sure what. I haven't thought about this enough to write eloquently, but you haven't thought about it at all, so hopefully this is an improvement.

Sorry if I fucked this up; I haven't read hardly any of the case at all. 207.112.104.177 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on a case you haven't even read hardly any of is not something that inclines people to take your views on it seriously, nor is using "dan tobias is full of shit" in your edit summary. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

207.112.104.177, the only thing you got right is the part about Wikipedia Review. The rest of what you have written is obvious trolling. Be gone.--MONGO 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone during disputes

6) Adhering to the basic precepts of civility is as important during a disagreement as at any other time. The maxim "comment on the content, not on the contributor" should still be followed whenever possible. Language more suited to advocacy than to the civil explanation of one's position on an issue should be avoided. Examples may include the assertion that because an editor edits in a given area or participates in a given WikiProject or also contributes to another website, his or her views and contributions are not entitled to respect; misuse of oversimplified characterizations in lieu of grappling with the force of another editor's actual arguments; facile allegations of user misconduct as an excuse not to engage in reasonable amount of discussion; or unduly stressing prior unrelated disputes in which a user has been engaged in lieu of discussing the current issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, as with 12, this is essay material rather than the basic (well-summarized) standard principles that are appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that that's any reason whatever to modify one word of this. Our "basic, well summarised, standard principles" apparently have failed to resolve this matter. Some fresh thinking is required. Support as written. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users here (including the parties) are well aware of what's acceptable and what's not. The mere fact that they do not comply (or do not wish to comply) is what has failed to resolve this matter - massive unfounded assertions that 'current principles are what failed to resolve this matter' is indeed 'fresh thinking', but riddled with very poor logic. If there are any deficiencies with current policy or norms as they appear, then it should go through the separate process (that has been well-established and accepted by the entire community) first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I need to introduce in evidence the fact that the underlying dispute, the corrosive behaviour of some parties, has been going on for a long time and has not been resolved? (actually it already is in evidence) That the case itself, prior to the introduction of these new proposals, was logjammed? (that's pretty obvious to any but the least astute observer I would think) If the old principles were adequate, this case would have been resolved months ago, or never come up in the first place because the corrosive behaviour would have been stopped long ago.

Further, I think you're fundamentally confused about how policy and principles get formed here. The "process" is that new policy, new principles are proposed and put into force. If they stick, then they actually are policy or principles. If they don't they don't. Time to try these out and see. The sticking, in this case, will be if ArbCom as a body votes to favour these. I think they should. You think they shouldn't. All set, we've both said all there is to say. Except my position is supported by the facts and circumstances, and yours... is not. IMHO. YMMV. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may need some balancing. When an editor newly arrives at a topic, if they have come from an inflammatory or prejudiced environment (be it wikiproject or external site) it may be worth noting that their previous influences may have an effect on their responses to subsequent well-reasoned argument. This is not to say that new contributions are unwelcome or to be simply dimissed - but instead to recognize that editors may be arriving with a pre-determined agenda and their persistence should sometimes be flagged as such. COI is unavoidably a comment on the contributor. Franamax (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

7) Administrators are trusted members of the community. The work of administrators who deal with complex situations and troublesome problems should be particularly appreciated by their colleagues and the entire community. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To MONGO) See also proposals 21 and 22 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Concur fully. It needs to be noted somewhere that while the diffs provided in Rfc's and arbcom cases may appear to be evidence of ongoing problematic behavior by an administrator, the totality of their administrative contributions needs to be taken into accord when specific remedies may be applied. An administrator that makes few admin actions and yet makes overt mistakes that can't be attributed to inexperience and appear malicious or circumspect should have less leniency than an administrator that has made thousands of admin actions and yet has a far lower percentage of what could be construed as malicious actions. I think Brad has that covered, but wanted to drive this point home.--MONGO 03:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with particular focus on MONGO's excellent clarification. user:Everyme 14:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "their colleagues" is perhaps a less-than-ideal wording, because it suggests (to me at least) a certain "in-group" mentality - perhaps "by all sections of the community" would be better? David Mestel^(Talk) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that either relative or absolute numbers are what matter. What matters is whether there's a pattern of behaviour that is at issue, that is causing difficulty. It doesn't matter if that behaviour represents the totality of the contributions or less than 1/10 of one percent of a prolific oeuvre of contributions. If the behaviour is corrosive, it needs to be stopped. Warn first, but if the pattern continues, stronger measures are needed. Hence I would support as written but suggest maybe some clarification might be beneficial. ++Lar: t/c 18:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should strive for admin perfection...my point was that a much less active administrator that makes overt mistakes that are malicious or in bad faith, deserves less clemency than a very active admin who makes only a few mistakes. Example...admin A has 300 admin actions...25 of which are "bad"...admin B has 3,000 admin actions, 25 which are "bad"...who deserves more clemency? I'm not suggesting that we dismiss any mistakes...but do we punish the more active admin equally with the less active one? The hope would be that the more active tool using admin would have far fewer "bad" mistakes, but we have to also consider the scope of their involvement..is it in more difficult subject matter(?), as well as the acknowledgement by either admin that they recognize that they have made mistakes and that they make assurances that they will strive to correct them. I believe apologies can go a long way if done sincerely...if the situation continues then of course harsher penalties are needed. I believe that unless an admin is horrible, or that they fail to recognize their transgressions and provide assurances that they will improve, then any first trip to arbcom should result in no more than a very temporary lifting of their admin tools...30 days or so. I believe NYBrad was able to make this point far better than I can...and I concur with his principle posted above.--MONGO 20:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

25 bad mistakes (and I'm talking bad ones here, not just relatively minor ones like inadvertant deletions) are 25 bad mistakes too many. I would treat both admins the same. Neither little activity nor frenzied activity should be mitigating factors. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a little on Lar's comment...

An administrator who makes 25 'bad mistakes' isn't automatically an issue since almost all administrator actions are reversible.

However, the major problematical issues of administrator behaviour that should make their status be questioned are

Refusing to allow other administrators to correct their mistakes.
Using administrative powers while involved in a dispute, or on behalf of someone involved in a dispute without community support to do so.
Gross incivility, undue threats, harassment.
Other abuse of privilege.

By definition, none of these are 'mistakes', but wilful or malicious acts. Showing malice should erode clemency. Wilful disregard also erodes clemency. This is a pretty common aspect of all justice systems.

On the other hand, 'minor' infractions, such as an isolated incident of blowing your top, or a misunderstanding of AfD procedures. Can have more weight to clemency. With the strong reminder that repeating, or falling back into these behaviour patterns negates them being "isolated" incidents.

To sum up, the following things should erode any clemency,

Wilful disregard.
Malice.
A Pattern of Behaviour.

--Barberio (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lar and Barberio. MONGO has perhaps mis-phrased an admin who makes "overt mistakes that are malicious or in bad faith". That strains the definition of "mistake" - even Clint gunned people down without malice. Bad actions (as above, bad actions) should be added to a separate ledger. Franamax (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes...I was more wordy than I needed to be. But in reality, arbcom has traditionally been less likely to sanction an admin who has been more active with the tools. Less active admins tend to be more likely to get punished via a desyopping since, whether this is factual or not, their loss of tools will have less impact on the project overall. NYBrad seems to be indicating that admins who take on the tough cases deserve more clemency than those that don't. I think that is what he is stating in his proposal.--MONGO 04:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main message I get is at the end: "sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status". That is the important point, I think. The bit you seem to be emphasising as justifying clemency is: "The work of administrators who deal with complex situations and troublesome problems should be particularly appreciated by their colleagues and the entire community." The caveat here is that such work should be appreciated if it is done correctly. We don't need to appreciate hard work done poorly. The last sentence, starting "however", affirms that poor judgment when using the admin tools is still unacceptable. I think Lar said it best above. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think now I see some of MONGO (and NYB)'s point here. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia... will always be part and parcel of the activity of an admin willing to wade into the difficult bits. The inevitable consequence will be complaints. Whether the actions were right or wrong, only the complainant will run the course - and some of them will be the best steeple-chasers to hand. So then, if no other admin is willing to address a problematic situation, who will sit in judgement of the outcome? (Yes, MONGO blew it with the "overt...malicious" phrasing :) Franamax (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue here is that, no, Administrators shouldn't be taking controversial actions unilaterally. In controversial situations, we use WP:Dispute resolution, we discuss, and only when the community has consensus is action taken. We have a process for where the community can't make a decision, it's the Arbitration Committee, and explicitly not individual admins 'willing to wade in'.

Wikipedia has no place for unilateral 'controversial' Administrator action. Unfortunately, a culture has grown of a minority of admin who feel that they are allowed to ignore WP:Dispute resolution in favour of expediency and 'wading in to get the job done'. --Barberio (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial is a matter of perspective. Not all actions may be known to ultimately lead to controversy. So, no, NYBrad is saying that we should stand behind the admins who do make tough decisions. Tough decisions are those when others may be apprehensive to act...we don't hang admins out to dry just because they deal with problematic editors or issues routinely. The only time we sanction admins is for repeated examples of abusive of tools or position.--MONGO 17:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Right, which is why we had the "admins willing to make difficult blocks" list, and other kinds of support, to acknowledge that some things are difficult. And we should not be setting things up so that people are either foolhardy, or gunshy. Some actions are difficult, and attract non-collegial people. But where finesse is required is in distinguishing between doing those difficult but correct things (amid a clamor that they were wrong) and doing things that are bad. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this case in part revolves around allegations of bad admin actions. Not just difficult ones, but bad. Difficult ones stand up to scrutiny at AN/I. Bad ones do not. (not 100% perfect, of course, it's a luck of the draw sort of thing...) If an editor is hesitant to bring an action of their own to AN/I, or hesitant to explain themselves when asked politely, I consider that worrisome. ++Lar: t/c 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of administrators

8) Administrators are expected to lead by example, and act as role models for users in the community. To a greater extent than other editors, administrators are expected to observe the principles of Wikiquette by behaving in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. In particular, administrators who have been criticized in decisions of the Arbitration Committee are expected not to repeat the conduct in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

" ... criticized in decisions ... " the word criticized seems too narrow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the usage of the words "role model".

While any editor may be a role model for others, I don't know if we should necessarily state that all admins should be such.

This comes back to the duality of adminship being "no big deal", and being "just another editor", while being, presumably, trusted members of the community.

While #7 above conveys this fairly well, I'm not sure that this principle does.

Perhaps just add the last sentence or two to #7?

Further thoughts welcome. - jc37 00:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If admins aren't able to be role models of Wiki principles and behavior, then they shouldn't postulate for adminship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of being "able to". I believe that every editor is "able to". The point being that: a.) Any editor may be a role model, and in a perfect world, we should expect all editors to be role models and b.) any admin may be a role model, and in a perfect world we should expect all admins to be role models.

That said, I don't believe that we hold admins to a "higher editing standard" than other editors. An admin is "just another editor", who the community has trusted with some additional tools and responsibilities.

To say or suggest otherwise doesn't seem accurate or appropriate. - jc37 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "adminship is no big deal" thing has run its course. At this stage in the project, where it has grown to this size, as the problems have grown, so have the responsibilities and expectations placed on admins. The standards for adminship are much higher now than they were in earlier years. There is an expectation that admins be role models. Many new users (myself included in my newb days) look up to admins. We're expected to know policy, enforce it, and set an example because of that. Editors aren't required to know policy; admins are. For that reason, admins are held to a higher editing standard. It's one thing to mess up because you don't know the rules. Quite another to mess up because you chose to ignore them... or, worse yet, game them. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you're welcome to have such an opinion, I'm merely following what's stated on our various policy pages, and has been (rather consistantly) stated at RfA by many (including User:Jimbo Wales). As such, this is considered common practice interpretation of policy. If you feel that it's run its course, I suppose the recourse is (presumably) to: be bold and edit the policy (being prepared for the WP:BRD cycle), find consensus for the change, get the arbcomm to support your contention, or get Mr. Wales to recant his typical current stance and endorse. - jc37 04:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales has already changed his stance. Regardless, the fact remains, admins are often the ones who users turn to when they need advice or assistance. As such, we are expected to be good examples, role models, for those users. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a bigger deal than it used to be." (Which I'd agree with) is not equal to "It's a big deal", and is not equal to him "changing his stance".

But that aside, all the things you're saying are nice, in theory. But how is any of it different for editors who aren't admins? It's not. - jc37 05:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. The point is that admins are expected to be role models. That is what the principle is about and, in fact, a great deal of this case. Quoting WP:ADMIN: "Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However, in general, they are role models within the community, and must have a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters.[1] [2] [3] When acting as administrators, they also need to be fair, exercise good judgment, and give explanations and be communicative as necessary." (emphasis mine). This is evidenced across the project on a daily basis. It's a simple fact that admins are held to a higher standard and expected to lead by example. Convoluting admins and editors is not helping in this process. It's unnecessary. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that that section you quote would seem to contradict other sections on the same page. But when I note that it was added as a result of a few arbcomm rulings, I suppose I can see why.

As I noted to NYB (and which I'm sure he knew already), arbcomm is not restricted to precedent. (See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy.) So just because it was said in a specific case in the past, that doesn't mean that it applies in general, now. Though I do think that the eventual outcome of this case (should there be any), should be interesting. - jc37 07:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--I think standards of admin behavior have fallen over my 2+ years here. Every time arbcom "warns" or "admonishes" or "reminds" an admin, and then fails to follow through when the conduct is repeated, it reinforces the idea that adminship is a big deal, and that removing it is a bigger deal. By treating adminship as precious and removable only in extraordinary cases, it has become precious and removable only in extraordinary cases. But let's face it, being a bad admin is not just about deleting the main page or running vandal bad-hand sockpuppets. Realistically, there is probably a small number of admins every year who need to be given a 10 or 20 of 30 day sit-down from the tools. If this was more routine, it would create an environment where it was treated as routine by the rest of the community rather than a major drama event, and it would also show the rest of the admin corps that good administrator conduct means more than just pushing the buttons well. Thatcher 07:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher makes a good point. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Also, jc, if previous ArbCom rulings should apply only to the cases for which they were created, then why should it not be the same for this one, in your view? Attempting to generalize the wording of these proposed principles does not help in this case. And I don't see the negative aspect of this applying in general in the future, much in a way as Thatcher has detailed above. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 12:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too strongly concur-- Thatcher makes an excellent point. To me, the standard for removing adminship should basically be the same standard for granting it. Does the editor have the confidence of the community? If we held an RFA in which only good-faith users participated, would there be a consensus that this editor should be an admin?

I know we must have some flexibility there-- any admin will draw opposition from bad-faith users. But as a matter of principle, I think that the behavior standards for becoming an admin should be in the same ballpark as the behavior standards for remaining an admin.

Instead--- in the current system, you have to immaculately mind your 'p's and 'q's if you hope someday to wield the mop-- but once you've got the bit, you basically have go haywire before anyone dares to do a desysop. I think Thatcher has it right-- if you merely "warn" an uncivil admin, then you've just told everybody else that they can kick back, be as uncivil as they care to want, and they needn't worry in the slightest until such time as they too get a warning. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Thatcher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. David Mestel^(Talk) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably concur. The corrosive behaviour exhibited by some parties to this case is something I want no one to take as an example, but regrettably, I think some admins have modeled themselves after it. This must stop. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to join the chorus of concurrence here. the wub "?!" 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to detract from the sentiments above, I wholeheartedly concur with the expressed principle up until the sentence with "criticized in decisions of the Arbitration Committee". Does the AC criticize? I thought it derived Principles, Findings of Fact, and Remedies as opposed to delivering criticism - although certainly individual arbitrators make critical comments (and occasionally quasi-evidence), the individual arb's should carry no extra weight (more than, say, my opinions). Perhaps "administrators who have been subject to ArbCom findings"? Franamax (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher has it down cold. This has been an issue for nearly three years now. We routinely block editors. Why is it not routine to remove admin privileges? Hiding T 14:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning of administrator actions

9) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility and avoiding personal attacks, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to jc37) The committee has already held that "Administrators are expected to provide timely, patient, civil explanations for their actions. All administrative actions are logged and offer a "reason" field which administrators are encouraged to utilize for this purpose unless a full explanation is being provided elsewhere. While all editors are expected to reply to good-faith queries about their activities placed on their talk page, administrators have a particular duty in this regard." (From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Suggest rewriting the second-to-last sentence to:

Subject to the bounds of civility and avoiding personal attacks, editors are welcome to question or to criticize an administrator's actions.

And dropping the last sentence. The reason being that AFAIK, there is no requirement that an admin must explain an action. But by the same token, there is no guarantee that an admin's action will not be reversed. AFAICT, these two are intended to balance each other. So you can choose to not explain an action, but know that someone else may undo your action, at which point, you may have to explain anyway. (And if there are other concerns, an explanation may be required to maintain or restore trust.) - jc37 00:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to NYB's post above) - Setting aside the question of arbcom not being held to precedent for a moment, "encouraged" is not equal to "expected". Also, "explanations upon request" doesn't seem quite the same as "edit summary usage". Though again, we don't require edit summary usage (though I sometimes wish we did), but we do encourage its use.

If that was a principle in this case I might have suggested the following:

"Administrators are encouraged to provide timely, patient, civil explanations for their actions. All administrative actions are logged and offer a "reason" field which administrators are encouraged to utilize for this purpose. While all editors are expected to reply to good-faith queries about their activities placed on their talk page, administrators are particularly encouraged to act in this regard."

As a reference, please read the entire second paragraph of the introduction at WP:ADMIN. (Starting with: "In the very early days...") - jc37 02:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"administrators are people that are entrusted with potentially harmful tools." - Because of that, when their judgment is called into question regarding the use of these potentially harmful tools, they are expected to reply to such inquiries in a timely, patient, and civil manner. This is pretty straight forward. Misusing your tools then ignoring requests for information is unacceptable. To suggest otherwise is counter-productive to this process. Convoluting admins with editors is not constructive when discussing the potential abuse of admin tools. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 04:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Misusing your tools then ignoring requests for information is unacceptable." - To say that sentence violates WP:AGF. "Misuse" is subjective, a presumption, and a gross generalisation. If you doubt it, there's quite a voluminous amount of commentary along these lines at various discussion pages, including XfD/AN/VP/etc. ("So-n-so deleted an article on my teacher. That's abusing their tools..." etc. And that's presuming that the statements are civil, when, all too often, they're not.)

So, yes, it's nice if they do. Yes, it should be encouraged. But no, it's not required. - jc37 04:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, if the complaint is "You wrongly deleted the article on my teacher," the complaint is coming from a child. In such a case, an admin should politely explain the situation to the child, directing them to the appropriate policies, in order to educate them on the way we work here. Failing to do so is careless and disrespectful. A great example of demoralizing an editor. Also, the last part reads "... and to justify them where needed." Obviously, in such a case as exampled above, you would not justify the action, but you are still expected to have some common courtesy and explain why you did it. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Convoluting admins with editors is not constructive..." - admins are editors. That's not convolution, it's unarguable fact.

"Failing to do so is careless and disrespectful." - subjective.

"...but you are still expected to have some common courtesy and explain why you did it." - also subjective. In this case, presuming that a lack of an explanation is equal to not being courteous.

But anyway, I understand that this is your opinion. At this point, I think the only way this would move forward, is if you find references/citations establishing that your presumption is fact. So far everything I've read in policy and guidelines is that explanation/discussion is encouraged but not required. - jc37 05:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to this on the talk page, because clearly it's wasting space here. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also responded there. (I "hope" others will actually continue to the read that discussion/take it under consideration, else it should probably be restored?) - jc37 06:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the original principle not sufficient? I preferred that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it hasn't been working. Support as written. Some of the parties in this case politely explain their actions when asked. And some war to remove questioning from their own pages, and war to retain their badgering on the pages of others. This must stop. Polite explanation is a minimum requirement, unless the questioning is malicious or badgering. And even then civility is important. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll focus here on the second sentence, Subject only to the bounds of civility and avoiding personal attacks... While the idea is noble, the "bounds" of "civility" and "personal attacks" are hopelessly nebulous at this point (and should probably remain so). To all those who say "I know it when I see it", I can only reply "how can you be so fatuously priggish to so assert your putative superiority in the face of overwhelming evidence of your own nepotistic instincts toward incompetent oligarchy?". CIV? PA? Fair comment? I would prefer to see here a principle that admins should be extra-resistant to provocation, and in light of some recent -stuff-, other admins should be equally tolerant if the perceived infraction is a result of direct interaction in Talk space (that's code for starts-with-G). Franamax (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator judgment on issue selection

10) Administrators should bear in mind that at this stage in the evolution of Wikipedia, they have hundreds of colleagues. If an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(to jc37) No, the ideas are clearly related, or at least it was clear to me. An administrator who doesn't feel capable of dealing with an issue dispassionately can afford to leave it to another, because there are now hundreds of active administrators, so there should be someone else available to address the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This seems to be two different ideas: Collegiate discussion, and when an admin feels that they can't be civil or whatever. Could this be split into two separate principles? - jc37 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's roughly what I was thinking, perhaps it will clarify?

Administrators should bear in mind that they currently have hundreds of colleagues. There is no requirement that an individual administrator is the one and only person who must take action. At any time an administrator may bring an issue to the notice of other administrators for insight, help, or deference.
If an adminstrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own, he or she should recuse himself or herself from the situation.

Does that clarify? - jc37 03:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it is that of the proverbial 360-kilogram (800 lb) gorilla: If every administrator knows that if they intervene, they will be targeted with accusations of being involved, or the person causing the problem is backed up by a clique, etc. IIRC Viridae has alleged this to be the case with JzG. At what point does "because no-one else will" become a valid reason for one particular admin to intervene? For that matter, it always has to be some particular admin, and anyone can make accusations of being involved. --Random832 (contribs) 03:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have AN and ANI so that "involved" admins can seek the advice/counsel of uninvolved admins. When one admin makes it his mission to revert another admin on a very routine basis then that is an issue. An administrator should not misuse their tools just to spite an adversarial administrator.--MONGO 03:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this principle, and it does make sense. (Minor note that it might need to be modified at a later date to prevent users gaming the system on this issue.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have multiple concerns with this. I believe the sentiment is the same as every wiki-editor should embrace: "don't get the idea that you are the only person standing in the face of disaster". However, I can easily read it another way: "Don't sweat it, you can easily find another real 'pedian (aka a fellow admin) to enforce exactly what you want". I could read it even worse to find the suggestion to get on an IRC channel to obtain suitable support. I think this should be wholly rewritten. Franamax (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of administrator tools in disputes

11) Administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute or, except in emergency circumstances or cases of blatant bad-faith harassment, in other disputes. Except for administrators' responsibility to address policy matters such as by addressing BLP or copyright violations, administrator status accords no special privileges in determining the content of articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personally I would remove the "Except for …" and just go with "Administrator status accords no special privileges in determining the content of articles." Admins may well be at an advantage in enforcing policy due to their tools, but non-admins are quite able and in fact encouraged to address BLP and copyright violations e.g. by applying {{copyvio}}. the wub "?!" 00:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with thewub. In particular, I don't think we should get hung up on specifics. How about:

Administrator tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute. Except in a few clearly defined instances, administrator status accords no special privileges in determining the content of articles.

I left in an "except for" clause as a sort of elastic clause, since we do have a BLP exception, and who knows what the future may bring. - jc37 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all comfortable with this modification from the original principle - not just the wording, but part of the substance in the first sentence too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original principle wasn't working. Support as written. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety

12) All editors, and especially administrators, should avoid engaging in conduct creating a reasonable appearance that significant site policies are being violated. This includes, for example, an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions that can reasonably be perceived as being taken to further the administrator's position in a content dispute, even if the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor's repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with another editor under circumstances giving rise to persistent and reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, even if the allegations are disputed or untrue. The ~~gravamen~~ basis of this principle is not that "where there is smoke there is fire" or that perception is reality, such that every allegation is presumed true; this would be contrary to our prevailing ethic of assuming good faith until the evidence demonstrates otherwise. Moreover, some administrators will always be more controversial than others because they are more active or because they deal in more contentious areas. Nonetheless, if an editor is repeatedly and in good faith accused of persistent policy violations, then he or she has a responsibility to assess whether his or her behavior is unnecessarily creating or contributing to that perception. If so, it should be changed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"gravamen" replaced by "basis" ("foundation" would also work) to reduce distraction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

" ... an adminstrator's repeatedly ... " typo, not sure if it's OK for another editor to fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fixes here are fine. Even on the proposed decision page, anyone can fix a blatant and obvious typo. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's streamline this and make it clear it applies to all editors.

As such, remove: "an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions that can reasonably be perceived as being taken to further the administrator's position in a content dispute, even if the administrator actually has no such intention; or"

And change "Moreover, some administrators" to "Moreover, some editors"

And remove "and especially administrators, ", also for the reasons I expressed in #8. - jc37 01:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is essay material rather than the basic (well-summarized) standard principles that are appropriate to cover this issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support. This simple principle underlies a lot of our policies. For example-- an admin may not use tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute-- EVEN if he is on the right side of that dispute. I shouldn't directly write my own biography-- EVEN if I intend to write an honest one. Arbs with conflicts should recuse themselves-- EVEN if they intend to would vote fairly. Why all our policies discourage such actions, even if done in good faith? Because our policies are written so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety-- since that appearance would tend to undermine confidence in the project, sow the seeds of strife, demoralize the project, and exacerbate disputes. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wikilinked gravamen since I didn't have a clue what it means and it seems fairly technical, is there a simpler replacement? As for the principle in general, it seems good and relevant, if overly long. Will have a go at streamlining it. the wub "?!" 08:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

All editors should avoid conduct creating a reasonable appearance that site policies are being violated. For example, an administrator's repeatedly taking administrator actions that can reasonably be perceived as being taken to further the administrator's position in a content dispute, even if the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor's repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with another editor under circumstances giving rise to persistent and reasonable suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, even if the allegations are disputed or untrue.

This is not to say that "where there is smoke there is fire" or that perception is reality, such that every allegation is presumed true; this would be failing to assume good faith. Moreover, some editors will always be more controversial than others because they are more active or because they deal in contentious areas.

Nonetheless, if an editor is repeatedly and in good faith accused of persistent policy violations, then he or she has a responsibility to assess whether his or her behavior is unnecessarily contributing to that perception. If so, it should be changed.

the wub "?!" 09:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, no more legalese pseudo-Latin, PLEASE! Nor do I like this proposal either. It's far too subjective and far too dependent upon "reasonable feelings" (a dubious concept at the best of times), as opposed to facts. There will always be a significant minority who disagree with any contentious administrative decision and perceive it - perhaps reasonably, if you start with certain postulates - as being biased and counter to policy. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right, although a repeated pattern of admin decisions that all go one way does mean they are more likely to be so. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps the most important principle in the case. Support as written. (except for gravamen :) ). Tweak the wording to clarify, if you must, but change the sense? Not one iota please. See this blog post of mine which has some relevance on the matter of appearances. ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to think my way around some of the implications of AGF and when it ceases to be applicable. For example, there is at least one account respected by large parts of the community of whose actions I am no longer capabe of assuming good faith. It is definitely the case that AGF is used by content warriors as a shelter sometimes. (It would not have any traction at all if it could not be used so.) Do we need a Caesar's wife exception to AGF for a repeatedly problematic account? I believe so. In essence, you have deniability up to a point. Don't stretch it too thin. Thus, in spite of the pseudo-Latin (which I, as is obvious, like) and of the question of "reasonableness" (which I, as someone who reads a lot of analytical philosophy, tend to think is perfectly clear), I'd say I agree with this principle. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

13) It is unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment, including express or implied threats against another editor, damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia. Moreover, any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing or threatening should be avoided. Where an action or comment reasonably causes an editor to feel harassed or fearful, even if inadvertently, the user who made the comment should take steps to address the concern. If an editor is being harassed on or off Wikipedia, other editors must not contribute to the harassment, even if they are involved in a dispute with the harassed editor. They may, however, continue to express their views regarding the merits of the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To SandyGeorgia) There's a longer formulation in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch case, which I tried to summarize here. Would that be preferable in your view? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"Where an action or comment reasonably causes an editor to feel harassed or fearful, even if inadvertently ... " Editors feelings aren't always grounded in reality (speaking in terms of psychopathology); any way to place more emphasis on the reasonably part of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To NYB) No, I see the same problem in the Jim62sch version; feelings and reasonably take on different meanings when dealing with certain psychopathology. Want to avoid the loophole, if possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "reasonably" does a lot of work in a lot of context sometimes. Compare reasonable person. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that link is reassuring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph... thought it would be a redlink. :) MastCell ^Talk 06:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could do with a nod to the fact that calling something "harrassment" does not necessarily make it so, and is an oft-used tactic to quash dissent or troublesome questions. Neıl ☄ 15:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil's point prompts another, missing in the proposal: administrators making accusations towards other editors (harrassment or otherwise) should back them up with diffs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that that point may be a motivation for the inclusion of the word "reasonable". David Mestel^(Talk) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what the principle states. I would add (perhaps as another principle?): "The charge of harassment is a serious one that carries an implicit assumption of bad faith and misconduct on the part of the accused. The accusation should not be made outside the appropriate forums for resolving problems with editor behavior, and when made should be accompanied by concrete evidence to support it. An editor who makes unsupported or frivolous public claims of harassment violates the civility policy." alanyst ^/talk/ 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising concerns

14) Under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient. However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. Such situations are sensitive and in cases of doubt a user should consult privately with an experienced administrator or the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Subject to ignoring all rules. The user should always act first in the best interest of the other editor. The warning should be qualified, the experienced admin or arbcom should be contacted immediately, the user giving the warning should be prepared to publicly retract and/or apologize. I would say, if in doubt, warn first, consult next, apologize afterwards. Doesn't that adhere to the principle of "do least harm"? Franamax (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External criticism sites

15) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or forums critical of Wikipedia or its contributors, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. Exceptions may be made only in extraordinary circumstances where a user engages in egregious conduct that endangers the well-being of the project or its participants, such as by revealing private information concerning contributors or committing gross acts of overt harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd get rid of a few adjectives. Sadly, circumstances where a user engages in conduct such as revealing private information isn't extraordinary; on some websites and forums, it's a favorite game. So: would this clause allow for or disallow the barring of that jerk who decided to list all the "Jew administrators" on Stormfront? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"Exceptions may be made only in extraordinary circumstances where a user engages in egregious conduct that endangers the well-being of the project or its participants, such as by revealing private information concerning contributors or committing gross acts of overt harassment." There are so many qualifying adjectives in this sentence that it appears to set the bar too high for enforcement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the use of the term "private information" rather than personal information. Someone's religion would clearly be private information. Someone's specific address, credit card details, date of birth, etc, etc - all "private information". However, insofar as COI goes, almost all COI-relevant information is not "private information", simply "personal information." Same goes for someone's name, or previous user account name/s, if they are, in any way at all, relevant to the discussion of COI.211.31.166.245 (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The adjectives and qualifications are needed to keep the exceptions from swallowing the rule, and those so inclined to turn this principle into yet another introduction of the rejected BADSITES concept to smear participants in certain critical forums with guilt by association and impose unreasonable restrictions on linking and referencing such sites. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would trust that such situations are carefully investigated, and that it is confirmed that the identity of the poster on the external site is verifiably the same as the identity of the Wikipedia user. Having the same username is not proof positive, as "framing" could easily be done. Neıl ☄ 15:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits inspired by external postings

16) Postings on sites critical of Wikipedia sometimes point out deficiencies in Wikipedia policies or content that should be addressed. Good-faith criticism is rendered neither stronger nor weaker simply by reason of the forum in which it is found. However, an editor or administrator who edits Wikipedia or takes an administrator action prompted by commentary from any source outside Wikipedia itself must ensure that the edit or action reflects his or her own duly considered view on the proper action to be taken, rather than simply reflecting the views of others outside Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To InkSplotch) The "appearance of impropriety" proposal any more is intended to address ongoing and persistent patterns of behavior, not an issue with a particular edit. I'm sensitive to Michael Kinsley's critique of "appearance of impropriety" and the New Jersey Bar report criticizing this phrase without more as a legal standard; hence the narrowness of its application here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is exactly how I work with respect to tipoffs from WR - I believe i stated that at one point on that forum. Viridae ^Talk 22:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"Postings on sites critical of Wikipedia ... " It doesn't seem necessary to restrict this to "sites critical of Wikipedia"; why not just "external sites"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this principle is often overshadowed by policies such as SOCK and BAN. Postings on sites critical of Wikipedia often originate from blocked or banned users, or simply from sources who feel they wouldn't be safe in directly contributing to Wikipedia themselves. That stigma is often used against good faith editors who do try to act here. I think this is an important principle: to take responsibility for one's actions. I would also hope a similar proposal could approach this from an alternate angle: that simply because an action or request originates from a banned or bad-faith editor, that a good faith editor is not necessarily working against the best interests of the project. This may be in conflict with some of the ideas you express above in Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, but it seems to me that giving into this appearance of impropriety, at times, does more harm to the project than good. It just doesn't seem fair, especially as I've seen vandals outside Wikipedia chuckle at the power reverse psychology can wield here because of this. --InkSplotch (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems good, though I would agree with SandyGeorgia that it can apply to any external sites e.g. if something similar to Wikback gains traction again. (In fact I feel the crux of it would be a good principle for IRC, but let's deal with one intractable issue at a time…) the wub "?!" 00:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to "fix" Wikipedia and or problematic editors is to do so on Wikipedia.--MONGO 00:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO: Perhaps in theory. But it hasn't been working so well of late. Actually there's a term or two for shunning externalities... Insularity. Or even inbreeding. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum...well, again, if we are using offsite areas to do what can better be done right here, then I think that is an issue. I'll let others decipher what your inbreeding comment regards...cus I juz don't have a clu wat cha talkin bout.--MONGO 20:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While not necessarily a hard standard to meet, it is a rather difficult standard to prove. And in it's breach, rather difficult to disprove. I fear that tacitly approving edits, and particular admin actions based on off-site posts, will only lead to more conflict. To address Brad's "appearance of impropriety" comment, the nature of offsite postings is that they are never isolated edits, but rather the act of participation makes them ongoing and persistent patterns of behavior. Logically, long term particpation in an offsite forum and taking action based on posts on the offsite forum demonstrate an "ongoing and persistent patterns of behavior." For example, it is incongruous for an admin to express contempt or ridicule on an offsite forum for a group/groups of editors and then turn around and block them for "3RR" violations regardless of how clear-cut the violation is. I think it needs a "reasonable admin/editor" test rather than an internal criteria test. Would a reasonable admin believe that the action taken is unquestionably in the interest of the encyclopedia? Anything less than meeting that test should be deferred to consensus when taking action based on off-site forums. --DHeyward (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per MONGO. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fully endorse. user:Everyme 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take my input where I can get it. Those who refuse to listen to external criticism may be missing out on important information. I'll trot this blog posting of mine out yet again. Support as written. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err...if we have to decode what I oftentimes see on WR ranging from mildly informative (note:only when my I have yet to have coffee and am not as of yet awake fully) to other commentary such as "he is a real poo-poo" and there is no editorial oversight regarding the less than informative info, then who's to say anything on such sites is truly useful. Myself and many others haven't the time to sift through such critique and wonder what is valid and what is not. More importantly...popular memes that permeate such offsites oftentimes allow lies and gross mischaracterizations to fester, unchallenged and unsubstantiated by even those that proclaim they are there for the betterment of this website. When an offsite makes it their mission to slander, misrepresent and fails to provide, in many cases, a neutral, fact based accord of an editor or an issue, and instead is little more than a dumping point for all the "BAD" stuff, then how can it be trusted in most cases as a place that is worth heeding?--MONGO 20:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the sort of problem I was trying to raise above. NYB posts this principle that someone who does find something on a site like WR and decides it's valid, should only be taking action on Wikipedia if they look on wiki and decide for themselves that it's an appropriate thing to do. I agree with this, but the reality I see is echoed in your comments; that you're looking to the source, and not the editor or their motiviations to act. I'm sorry, but it's that kind of attitude I find poisonous. WR was a cesspit when I first saw it, back when it first opened. Over time, those with the biggest spleens to vent ranted and raved about Wikipedia, until they ran out of things to say. These days, there's still a lot of negative energy but there's some positive contributors as well. Wikipedians willing to face criticism, discuss other's complaints, and still stand up for us. Which is not something anyone here should be forced to do. But it's raised the level of discourse over there, and it's even improved some articles over here. You may not trust it, and that's fine. That's not the same as there being nothing to learn from it. --InkSplotch (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In line with SandyGeorgia's comment, I'd modify the first statement thus: "Postings in off-wiki forums, including sites critical of Wikipedia, sometimes point out deficiencies in Wikipedia policies or content that should be addressed." I also suggest adding a statement along the lines of: "Community consensus can only be achieved via on-wiki discussion. Off-wiki discussion alone does not meet the level of community input required for taking or explaining certain on-wiki actions." This might help to address concerns that have been expressed in this case about private mailing lists, and might provide guidance regarding IRC and official or quasi-official public mailing lists. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent standards

17) All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Experienced administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior as less experienced editors. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Change "administrators" to "editors" to clarify that this applies to all "experienced" editors. - jc37 01:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is appropriate - I can see some point to it in the last sentence, but the wording and content before that is (in my view) directly conflicting with the accepted and long-established norm that administrators are expected to lead by example. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-evident (at least, it seems self-evident to this self). --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear this is empty. Take two hypothetical Wikipedians. Each have been here for two years during which time they have been inoffensive users. One has passed an RFA, the other has not. Suddenly, both become persistently, rude and uncommunicative and occasionally outrightly abusive. The editor will now never become an administrator; the other will never lose his administratorship. The ArbCom has shown it is almost completely unwilling to ever desysop anyone except for really extreme abuse, and even then, very, very rarely. Unless this remedy is directed at the ArbCom it's completely empty. --JayHenry (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JayHenry speaks wisely. This must change. Nevertheless, support. I'd like to see the words articulated and voted on. ++Lar: t/c 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feuds and quarrels

18) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them, and in extreme cases, may be directed to do so.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"... whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and if attempts at reconciliation or mediation are unsuccessful, should seek ..."? Neıl ☄ 15:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment

19) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her behavior, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her behavior. Civility and decorum are especially important in the highly charged atmosphere of a user-conduct RfC. Where a highly experienced administrator is the subject of an RfC, the initiating party may be justified in including a large number of diffs demonstrating the alleged problems, to demonstrate that they have been persistent rather than sporadic; but this should have reasonable limits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rfc's should be ample warning to individuals that some believe there is a problem. However, there are many times that Rfc's are filed by those who have only harassment in their minds. More needs to be done to quickly eliminate frivolous and or fraudulent Rfc's since all they do is aggravate.--MONGO 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some like to play the "harassment card" to deflect criticism of their own behavior. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an Rfc is filed and those that support the Rfc are vastly outnumbered by those who don't, then what else do you call it besides frivolous or even fraudulent...want an example?--MONGO 03:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Diffs must have reasonable limits? What are you talking about? I think this is a pretty poorly worded principle, and currently would serve little to no real purpose. Perhaps more clarification is needed to change this, but certainly, I think the original prinicple in the Jeffrey case is sufficient. (I agree with the point that MONGO has raised though.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand the point MONGO has raised. Perhaps you can clarify? One of the matters in dispute in this case is the RfCs that one party put together. The first was sound, well reasoned, civil, and well received. As I introduced in evidence, the subject of the RfC acknowledged the matters at issue and vowed to change, after wide endorsement of large factions of the community. Clearly beneficial. The other was terminated prematurely by the filing of this case... I think if it had been allowed to run, it is possible the same would have resulted. This principle seems to endorse the idea of user conduct RfCs while advocating that they be carried out with extreme delicacy and reasonableness. What exactly is wrong with this principle? Support as written. ++Lar: t/c 18:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar...I went out on a tangent...was merely stating that not all Rfc's and other forms of filed dispute resolution have any merit if those that oppose the Rfc greatly outnumber those that do. I recognize that there is concern that a "besieged" editor who has an Rfc filed on them may have many buddies who then show up to make a mockery of the Rfc, but the merit of the claims are generally either there or not...in only a extremely few examples have I seen Wikipedians overwhelmingly defend what is indefensible when substantive evidence is presented on an Rfc.--MONGO 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments is exactly that... a request for comments, not a "yea or nay" vote on whether a user is good or bad. It's not something that anybody could be said to "win" or "lose" based on "majority rules", but an opportunity for everybody involved to present and learn from ideas and viewpoints regarding the subject. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous Rfc's are generally dismissed by the community...those that have factual and substantive information are less likely to be defended by even someone's stauchest allies. An Rfc is worthless if the vast majority of the community opposes it...yet when the information is then brought to arbcom even though the community soundedly rejected the Rfc, we leave behind the effort to "present and learn from ideas" and enter another world that does little aside from heightening tensions and looking like a vendetta. Luckily, in most cases, these circumspect efforts to "learn" are usually quickly rejected by arbcom. This doesn't mean I don't endorse the use of Rfc's...I endorse them wholeheartedly as an excellent means to "learn"...but not if the Rfc is without much merit, as signalled by the staunch opposition by a vast majority of those that voice their opinions on the matter.--MONGO 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with you!!! I have to parse it a few more times to be sure. :) And I think you agree with this principle, you're just pointing out some things to keep in mind, right? I agree frivolous RfCs are not goodness. I agree they usually are disposed of by the community in short order. But I think a bigger problem is non frivolous RfCs (in the sense that there are real issues behind the raising of the RfC) which get bogged down in side issues, defensive actions by allies, incivility, past grievances, etc... I think that this principle shows how to avoid that. I again note that one of the RfCs related to this matter was patently non frivolous as demonstrated by wide endorsement of the concerns raised, and acknowledgement, by the subject, that there were matters that needed addressing. So yes, I think you raised something somewhat tangential. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

20) A minor edit is defined as one making only trivial or superficial changes between the current and previous versions of a page, such as typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, and the like. By clicking the "minor edit" box, an editor represents that the change would not call review by other editors on the page and could never reasonably be the subject of a dispute. An edit summary should accompany each minor edit, although this can be brief (e.g., "sp", "punct", "format"). Except for edits automatically marked as minor by the rollback tool (which should only used in accordance with policy), any change that affects the meaning of an article should not be designated as minor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "minor edit" thing is pretty useless; the project would be better off ignoring it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We need this; I was had more than once when deciding not to review certain changes to policy pages. There are so many policy and guideline pages that it's hard to keep up with them, and we need to be able to trust (edit to add clarification: experienced editors) that "minor" is truly minor, when deciding what to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this, and encourage a parallel finding to be adopted, further to evidence, highlighting parties who misused the minor edit summary. Misusing this function is rather trivial on its own, but does have a negative effect nonetheless, and when combined with other types of disruptive conduct. Anthøny 02:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some tools that automatically mark edits as minor. I don't agree with all of them, but sometimes the utility of the tool outweighs my annoyance that the tool is not set up quite right (sometimes the tool can be adjusted - rollback can actually be customised under the right circumstances). An example of such a tool I've been using recently (on Commons) is the HotCat tool to add, remove and change categories. Obviously, if an editor is aware that a change is controversial, they shouldn't mark it as minor. But if they are using a tool and make a change without realising that a change was controversial, then good faith should be assumed. Once notified that an edit is controversial, an editor should take more care. Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Jpgordon is saying turn off minor edits completely so that there is no hiding things, at the cost of being flooded with actual minor edits, I think it would be a rather high price to pay. I'd rather see this principle endorsed and the practice of hiding things with minor edits discontinued but if that's not possible, then OK, let it be demonstrated. Meanwhile, support as written. ++Lar: t/c 18:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carcharoth about good faith edits with a tool that automarks edits as minor. Does "Undo" do this? Perhaps the default on some of these tools might be flipped. But note that the principle reads: "By clicking the "minor edit" box..." incidentally excluding auto summaries. Jd2718 (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating user conduct

21) An editor's or administrator's good contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation. An editor's bad conduct also is not excused because another editor may also have engaged in such conduct. However, such factors may be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Remove "or administrator's" to clarify that this applies to all editors (which includes admins by default). - jc37 01:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is pretty standard - although it might be slightly modified here.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"User" would cover both. Thank you for avoiding "tu quoque". Neıl ☄ 15:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps could clarify that it is the provocation caused by such conduct that is the grounds for mitigation? David Mestel^(Talk) 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Circumstances and sanctions

22) In deciding what sanction, if any, to impose against an editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of contributions and other surrounding circumstances. Editors who are sanctioned are expected to take the decision into account in their future conduct, to abide by any sanctions imposed, and to address the issues identified. The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction, in any arbitration case, to reopen the case and to impose further and additional, and often much more severe, sanctions if behavior issues addressed in the initial decision are not resolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. (Reminder, please see my introductory note above regarding all proposals.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This doesn't really wash. The game for arbitrators to play is encyclopedicity. This will mean determining sanctions (at least partially) on the basis of which user(s) have done the better job of representing the academic mainstream, and ignoring (or at least reviewing skeptically) "evidence" presented by "filibustering partisans". If "other surrounding circumstances" refers to this, fine. If not...we have a problem. See also [95].Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to contradict the previous principle "An editor's or administrator's good contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation." If you say "Bad, bad editor. Really bad. But you do great work elsewhere so we're not going to do anything except tell you BAD BAD editor" then to say you haven't excused the behaviour based on good contributions in another aspect of participation, is nonsense. Maybe you could give a conflicting example of what you mean in order to square this circle? 87.254.68.5 (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way this is worded does appear to give weight to "Established admin will only get a slap on the wrists" idea about how Arbitration works.

To reuse my baseball metaphor...

If the Red Sox had only taken into consideration "overall record of contributions and other surrounding circumstances", then Manny Ramirez would still be in their team, despite mouthing them off, sitting out games and pushing an old man to the floor. Instead, the Sox took a look at the Team as a whole, and how Manny was affecting the whole team's ability to get into the World Series. And they decided that even if he started playing at full tilt again, they didn't want him in their team, to the extent of paying another team to take him.

The Arbitration Committee should realise that in the current Wikipedia, there are plenty of Jason Bays out there to replace the Manny Ramirezs. Wikipedia is a team building an encyclopaedia. If someone is very good at building an encyclopaedia, but so bad at working with others that they disrupt and bring down the moral of the entire community, then they're a net negative.

Can you reword this principle to better express that failure to work with the community outweighs individual contributions? --Barberio (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good contributions should not grant one immunity to established community norms. Particularly administrators. Neıl ☄ 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too have the concerns that this points to a double standard (but am comforted to see the concerns of double-standards addressed in one of the other principle). In my eyes, it is understandable for Arbcom to look at the totality of behavior in order to see if a given problem is an out-of-character isolated incident or whether there is a pattern of chronic behavior. I think it's completely legitimate to weigh things on a scale ranging from "User only rarely is problematic" to "User is frequently problematic".

But I reject the idea that we should start weighing "User's contributions" vs "User's problematic behavior". That immediately leads to the idea that sufficient contributions entitle you to bend or break the rules, provided you do so in small enough ways. That sort of logic, even implied, is a recipe for problems. It demoralizing the "have-nots", who due to real-life priorities just can't compete with the edit-counts of the superstars. And that logic is bound to embolden any high-contributors who feel tempted to push the envelope of acceptable behavior, knowing their edit-counts will protect them from anything harsher than a warning.

I would prefer "Arbcom will consider the editor's overall record of contributions" be tweaked to "Arbcom will consider the editor's overall record of conduct" to better highlight that contributions are not a commodity that can be traded for leniency. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with NYBrad here...progressive sanctions for increasing problems or the failure to reform. Tenured admins, especially those that admit to making mistakes and promise to improve deserve greater clemency.--MONGO 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said I wouldn't respond to MONGO anymore... But I really must object to MONGO's attempt here to establish that administrators have tenure, they do not. Adminship can and should be revoked for failure to keep up to the standard expected. --Barberio (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenured was a bad word choice...perhaps veteran...or experienced?--MONGO 22:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surroundings circumstances? Not too crazy about this but ok, although I'd prefer the ArbCom be honest: what they really want to say is extenuating circumstances. But the "consider the editor's overall record of contributions" part cannot fly. The very idea that you can garner a capital of "right to act egregiously" is so contrary to the core principles of the project that I'm surprised it is even being mentioned here. If anything, and this is actually one of the very sound principles proposed above, long-term contributors to the project don't have the excuse of ignorance. We're regularly faced with claims of bullying by established users, admins, users who have a lot of wiki-friends and so on. For the most part, I think the accusations are unfounded but if the ArbCom starts suggesting that their sanctions are in part determined by wiki-clout, well hey, I'll join the cynics and conspiracy-theorists. I'd also point out that while special circumstances are often detailed within the context of an arbitration case, the "overall record of contributions" is usually not discussed. In short, this means that ArbCom intends to rely on its own perception of that record, further distancing itself from facts and arguments presented, and further politicizing the committee. For instance, the sentence seems (to me) custom-made to be a double-defense of someone like SlimVirgin: "oh she's done a lot of good plus she has been a victim of harassment". Finally, I'd add that there's a big mistake underlying the proposed wording: I'm guessing that the intent is that sanctioning a valuable contributor might drive them away and thus hurt the project. But this assumes that the positive contributions of someone are inherently tied to their self-perceived right to bend the rules, which is ridiculous. An editor who can't tolerate the idea of continuing their work as a non-admin or continuing their work under some sort of probation is an editor the project can do without. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. So when someone has done a lot of 'good', one is also allowed to do bad as well. Well, it is at least a conformation of the actual practise with the ArbCom, as the "differential sanction policy" is already in use for years! My guess is that proposal will be used to justify some weak sanctions like a generic admonishment without actually dealing with the real stuff. Let me predict, there won't be any proposal to desysop certain admins, and if theya re there, they won't be supported by the majority of the Arbs..... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After a moment of thought, I really really extra-super-duper triple-dog strenuously urge a tweak in the wording on this one. It's a big departure from our existing policies to let "overall record of contribution" imply clemency-- none of our other policies do that. And as we see just paragraphs above, the current wording almost immediately leads people to conclude that Arbcom is saying that experienced, valued, trusted, or tenured admins deserve greater clemency than the rest of the rabble. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The rabble"??? Admins deserve the assumption of good faith that they know what they are doing when they take a controversial action (unless and until it is proven after multiple examples that they are not acting in good faith) and they deserve some understanding of stress that can come from dealing with difficult situations. But the wording of this finding suggests a double standard for seasoned admins vs everyone else. That kind of license for experienced admins to abuse the administrative privileges and normal editing tools is not a very good idea. --B (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us who agree there's a problem with the current wording-- can we come up with an alternative principle that would have the same end result but not suffer from the problems of the current wording? See here for a discussion. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds very good. But how are we going to reliably assess the absolute quantity, proportion, and overall average quality of a user's contribs? And how exactly will it weigh into the application of this principle? As worded, I interpret this as saying that someone with an outstanding record of featured contributions like e.g. Cla68 will not only not be admonished or warned in any way for the comparatively marginal doubtful things he has ever done, but may even justifiably expect a commendation of sorts. I.e. assuming that none of the admin parties gets desysopped, all of whom combined have less featured contributions than Cla and at the same time have considerably heavier evidence presented against some of each their behaviour. user:Everyme 13:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Supposed attack subpage (was mentioned by SV)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Uh... I read here that keeping tabs on other users was completely acceptable, and one user even specifically mentions that they're used in preparation for arbcom or RfC's. I fail how to see how it's an attack page. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impolitic-original-research thought is that when you see the univers as us v. them, everything discussing your actions is an attack. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to now state my agreement with Kwsn here. Cla has used a perfectly acceptable means of preparing "evidence", as it were, for a future RfC. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. are you saying it is or is not an attack page? and is or is not an acceptable way to prepare Rfc's or arbcomm evidence sections? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused - you're saying you agree with Kwsn, but you use the loaded word "manipulating" that seems to imply wrongdoing on Cla68's part - can you clarify this? --Random832 (contribs) 14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as well. In my evidence I think I pretty clearly demonstrate that Cla68's use of a draft RfC for JzG prior to going live with the JzG RfC seemed to have good results. If an RfC gets widely endorsed, has a number of alternate views which align or elaborate which also get widely endorsed, and generates statements of intent for positive change by the subject, it's hard to see how one could justify the charge that the draft was an "attack", or was "manipulating" anything. Judge things by their results, not by pejorative labels attached by detractors. But perhaps AD is just misusing the term "manipulating"? ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion stems from the word "manipulation". Perhaps "use" was better; although it can be used in the context of "manipulating a tool" (or maybe my dictionary is wrong >_<), it does seem to infer negative intent. I have reworded it to "use" to prevent confusion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG's evidence

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence)The diffs JzG provides in his evidence are annotated with my blue italicised comments, as follows:

[96] apparent Wikistalking - snide comment, but not stalking, not sure spiteful is right
[97] Snide and unhelpful attack, combined with dismissal of the issue of harassment of editors - sarcasm
[98] on the matter of antisocialmedia - not sure why this is even here, seems to be Cla68 helping to build a better article - how is this spiteful?
[99] links to a piece by Cade Metz (who Cla68 knows, Metz having been his outlet in the "secret"! mailing list story) to further his campaign against Jossi (incidentally, the article is characteristically inaccurate, failing to spot that Jossi !voted keep on the criticism fork afd). The irony! Cla689 creating a section on "conflict of interest" while pursuing an apparent conflict of interest... - raising Jossi's COI on Prem Rawat (something Arbcom itself subsequently became aware of, and Jossi himself agreed to refrain from editing Prem Rawat and related articles - how is this evidence of Cla68 being spiteful?
[100] champions Piperdown - Piperdown was unblocked - how is arguing for a user to be unblocked being spiteful, particularly considering the user WAS unblocked?
[101], [102] More Wikistalking - first diff is Cla68 (correctly) removing weasel words, second is thanbking someone for showing patience (how are these evidence of Cla68 being spiteful?)
[103] part of a brief edit war to try to drag Jayjg into a contentious arbitration case, reverted by people including clerks and arbitrators numerous times. - a trawl of the history of that time - [104], shows no such reversions by Cla68.
[105] a dig at Jimbo and an indication that he is on first-name terms with Metz, a long-standing sniper at Wikipedia - asking Jimbo a question? Calling someone by their first name? How is this spiteful?
[106] a sockpuppet promotes Cla68's false allegations published in the Register - nothing to to with Cla68 - irrelevant
[107] trolling re Swalwell, Alberta, a part of the SV = LM meme - agree here, Cla68's comment was not needed
[108], once again citing Metz. - what? Providing a reference is spiteful?

To summarise, JzG's "evidence" appears to be a collation of smears. Not one of the diffs JzG gives to back up his description of Cla68 as "spiteful" give much weight to that claim, when viewed either in isolation or as a group. At worst, there are perhaps two examples of sarcasm within the 11 bulletpoints JzG uses. Neıl 龱 08:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm very disappointed in the seeming misuse of diffs in the evidence section (this group specifically, and others more generally). A little more good faith reading of folks comments goes a long way towards not thinking they are attacking you. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68

Momentarily, I can't see any sufficient evidence presented to suggest that a finding or remedy be made against this party, mainly due to the lack of policy violations. If there is any new evidence added concerning this party's conduct, I'd appreciate it if a note/link is left here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I've seen that might be worth a finding is that cla sometimes has a hard time letting go of an issue. But it's pretty weak. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I initially commented on the case at Cla68's RFC (rather cheekily as Academy Leader here) it seemed to me then, and still does now, that Cla initiated the RFC process to try to understand, from a community perspective, how his engagement in the Weiss article affected the outcome of his RFA. It seemed to me then that Cla was in the right regarding the various problems pertaining to that subject, and that he was essentially browbeaten for taking a policy-compliant approach to resolving the issues with the article. However, and this fact continually strikes me, he could have easily initiated this drive in a more sensitive manner relying on his credibility as an editor entirely without referencing or linking to WR or ASM. The day after he "violated 3rr on his own RFA," as Denny Colt put it, [109] to link to ASM, BADSITES was inspired, [110] which various editors adamantly tried to cram down WP's collective throat as policy over the next year.

Despite everything that happened since then that would seem to evidence the contrary, especially the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, Cla's persistence in the use of RFC and community sanctioned processes to resolve conflicts indicates to me that he still has tremendous faith in the system. I don't believe he is or ever was acting out of spite or desire for revenge in pursuing above board DR processes. The fact that he pursues DR in areas where he himself has no prior involvement, frequently in opposition to other prominent members of the community, indicates to me that his faith in Wikipedia is in the system and its consensus-based processes rather than with its biggest would-be proponents. His interests, as far as I can tell, apart from article writing, are in seeing policy evenly applied everywhere, even and especially among those with tens of thousands of edits who make and enforce policy on a regular basis. DR is the only internal system by which any editor can be made accountable, and no editor can be exempt. As Cla earnestly pursues DR processes to develop consensus on and resolve community conflicts, he has my full support. Amerique^dialectics 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh...evidence now submitted indicates that this is no longer the case.--MONGO 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which evidence would that be? --NE2 16:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of this evidence demonstrating a long pattern of wikistalking, harassment and other offenses.--MONGO 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This just shows how people like yourself continually play the "harassment card" to try to get the upper hand in disputes. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of Cla68 wikistalking Slim to articles he had never before had any interest in and are far removed from his usual editing venues is obvious. If you choose to think the diffs are inaccurate that is certainly up to you.--MONGO 17:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll have a look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm going to have to postpone this - I don't expect to be on (much anyway) for 8 days or so. But it'll give an opportunity for any other evidence to be submitted concerning the newly added parties. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is very clear to me: Wherever Cla68 may have gone overboard, he is not alone, nor is he the one who went overboard the first, the farthest, or the most frequent. I think what happened in his RfA is rightfully still upsetting him. Like many others before and after him, he never received anything resembling an apology, for the shameful political tactics with which his RfA was shot down vengeance-style, with massive assumption of bad faith with him and clear-as-daylight-canvassing that still stinks to the high heavens. And before someone inevitably replays the 'so long ago, he should have let it go', let me say that time all by itself never rights any wrongs. To say that Cla's intention is to harm the project through harassment or disruption is simply impudent. dorftrottel (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be lenient with people who may react sub-optimally when they are provoked. This applies equally to JzG, Cla68 and MONGO. In such situations, supporting the editor can be more productive than restricting them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as the case is, in my view, about the importation of external campaigns and attacks on Wikipedians into Wikipedia, all those who have done so may come under a general sanction if the arbitrators share my view. --Jenny 08:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Activities Question

In various users evidence sections, there are descriptions of what appear to be inappropriate uses of admin tools by FM and SV. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of thier administrative tool use are these kinds of problematic actions? It looks like FM has made 47 administrator actions since March 17, 2007 (just over a year), and that sv has made 50 administrator actions since February 20, 2008 (three months).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

by Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the percentage that has any bearing. Administrators are expected to abide by policy. Occasional mistakes are ok, but when it becomes a pattern, then that's where the line is drawn (and remedies are considered). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my section on FM, I identified 12 of his 40 total logged actions since May 1, 2007 (30%) that I believed to be errant. It's important to keep several things in mind, though. 10 or so of his logged actions were protecting user pages of IP addresses of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs), a chronically annoying, though not banned, user. The two were basically in a tif where Jinxmchue decided to quit using his account and just edit via whatever dynamic IP address his ISP assigned him. FM decided that this needed to be documented on the user pages of these IP address (for example, see User:67.135.49.147) and when Jinxmchue objected, FM protected the pages. While this isn't thrilling conduct, it isn't really abusive either, but the point is, 10 of FM's 40 logged actions were protecting these IP user pages. So the 12 actions I identified were really closer to half of his total incidents of using the admin tools. Sheer numbers really don't mean anything. The second thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between misuse and abuse. Someone may misuse the tools without intending to be abusive. For example, indef blocking an IP (other than an open proxy) is a misuse because IPs change over time. That isn't done to be abusive. There was no malice or anything like that - it's just a bad idea and in one case, while preparing evidence, I found a dynamic or shared IP that he had indeffed and I removed the block because it was clearly someone else trying to use it and the person he was trying to block was long gone from it. This is not intentional abuse - it's just incorrect use - a training issue and a solvable problem. I contend that 8 of the admin actions I documented from FM constituted abuse of the admin tools and 4 were incorrect, though not abusive, use. --B (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my assessment, and examine all these assertions with care. .. dave souza, talk 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, wrt Ferrylodge, I meant "previous" to this arbcom request, not that the arbitration committee had predicted that FM would in the future block Ferrylodge and that such a block would be inappropriate. WRT to Rosalind Picard and James Tour, you are right that I missed that user and I have updated my presentation from "not a single" to "a single". Thank you for pointing him out, but it changes nothing I said. S-protecting an article to stop a user who is neither blocked nor banned at the time of the s-protection from editing an article is inappropriate. If FM had known that this was the reincarnation of a banned user, blocking him would have been fine, but s-protecting the article to stop someone from editing an article while they would be otherwise to edit (not blocked) is probably not a correct use of the tools. WRT to the IP indefblocks, I don't question the block, just the indefinite portion of it. IPs can change. That's not an abuse - it's an incorrect use, as I stated above. As for Schlafly, we will have to agree to disagree. I contend that he should have allowed an uninvolved administrator to handle it. --B (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the responses! This is exactly the sort of evaluation i hoped to provoke. I fully agree that the percentage is not really the issue, but the patterns. However it is often easier to find the patterns when you start from the whole picture. (imo) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Evidence of Threats, presented by User:Filll, et al.

I'm primarily responding to these allegations by Filll which have been repeated by other parties in this case, hopefully to dispel the myth that Cla68 made any threats against anyone - since this seems to be being repeated endlessly in the hope that it will become true. Verifiability, not Wikiality or mud slinging, should be our guiding principle here.

Cla68 has gone to the press at least twice in the last 6 months about Wikipedia issues. The first time was in connection with the Durova situation, and the second time was to discourage people from donating funds to the Wikimedia Foundation (further details available on request).
— User:Filll, here.

I would request further details of this to verify. Preferably with diffs. Unsupported accusations aren't helpful, especially since "evidence on demand" means the statement becomes impossible to verify.

The current disturbing situation arose from a longtime campaign conducted by a community-banned/indefinitely blocked editor, User: Moulton, on Wikipedia Review. Cla68 responded by making what appeared to be a threat to out members of the ID Wikiproject to the press.
— User:Filll, here.

It appears that in the actual posting, here, Moulton is commenting on the fact that the referenced editors are close to being outed. In this context it is sufficient to note, as Cla68 has done, that his post was in reference to the preceding posts so as to clear this allegation of making threats. Everything which follows from this point is moot, since no threat was made and Cla68 has posted his regret at what appear to be poorly worded remarks. It appears that the only way this could be mistaken is if it were taken out of context by people determined to ignore WP:AGF.

It is telling that this sort of misinterpretation (which seems to be based on confirmation bias) is extended to other statements made:

"It's unfortunate that group [not defined] of editors' behavior related to Intelligent Design articles has become such a problem that uninvolved editors and admins like me [emphasis added] have noticed the problem and gotten involved to varying degrees. I hope that the editors in question are willing and able to correct their behavior on their own. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)"
— User:Filll, here, emphasis his.

If we were assuming good faith, perhaps the more obvious interpretation of this statement would have been parsed as such: "that (uninvolved editors and admins) like me".

Outing Wikipedians in the press can have a number of negative consequences. It can make it harder to recruit more editors, and make it harder to retain the editors we have. It goes against several Wikipedia policies. Even the threat to do so is a bannable offense: [111]. It can lead to harassment, embarassment, stalking, damage to professional and private lives of editors, identity theft, death threats and worse. Clearly, this sort of threat in an attempt to blackmail other editors should not be allowed, and should not be encouraged. If this sort of behavior is allowed to continue, more will adopt it and the threats will escalate.
— User:Filll, here.

Whilst the principles of this statement are valid, the application of it to this case appears to be little more than scaremongering. The rest of Filll's statement appears to consist of much the same scaremongering, appealing to fear in order to push for sanctions based on nothing more than a (seemingly either intentional or rooted in confirmation bias) misinterpretation of statements. Further, adding emphasis to statements in order to distort meaning is disingenuous in the extreme and I suggest that said statements as primary evidence should be examined on their own merit without commentary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I hope this helps. 129.67.162.133 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 clearly made threats. Even when he later backpedaled and tried to blame it on Moulton (who actually was only describing his unsuccessful attempts to interest a journalist in this matter), Cla68 continued to say that, unless we did what he wanted, he would be forced to take action. In other words, he continued to make the threats. More importantly, they were not threats devoid of conditions - they were threats intended to coerce behaviour. I, for one, took them very seriously.

In addition, of course, Cla68 has only apologised for not choosing his words more carefully. In other words, an apology for getting caught. It isn't a rejection of the tactics underlying his threat...which, of course, he would have a hard time distancing himself from, since he has already used those tactics in the past.

It's pretty funny really, to see the casual dismissal of Filll's analysis as "scaremongering" from someone who is unwilling to log in. Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have a user account. I'm an exopedian, merely stepping in to defend a fellow article creator (as much as it pains me to involve myself in wikipolitics). I would also look up the meaning of the word scaremongering, if I were you, since you apparently don't know what it means.

You're claiming that he clearly made threats. This is demonstrably wrong, since there appears to be room for interpretation here, and thus the statement and its interpretation is not clear in either the sense of non-obfuscated nor of obviously true. Again, I'd exhort you to Assume Good Faith, an excellent guideline which, if it had been followed, would have rendered this entire argument moot. If you are so adamant that you are correct, perhaps you should attempt to prove conclusively that there is no room for error. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated in my view by the anon. Due to recent interaction with Filll I also find the analysis particularly questionable; see for instance here and here, both fairly over-the-top threats, not to mention a habit of threatening all types of editors with "userification" and/or blocking.[112] [113] [114] [115] [116] Filll has apologized for the first of these, but I think a serious credibility problem with his interpretation of Cla's comments remains. Mackan79 (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the only post by Cla68 being referred to is [117], right? (I see that it was edited, but only right after being posted; note to self: "joined" date is not "posted" date!) Going back a page in the thread, I see one previous post by Cla68 reporting on the state of the article, some speculation by others about whether Rosalind Picard has contacted the press, and related discussion about whether it would end up there. Cla68's second post to the thread was the disputed one, in which he comments, in a slightly mocking tone, that the "other side" probably isn't aware of this. I don't see any implication that Cla68 would be the one to contact the press, and don't see why the post caused such an explosion. Do any of the other posters that talked about the press edit Wikipedia? If not, that would explain why Cla68 was targeted, but not why the response was so disproportionate. --NE2 10:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, Filll has expressed disdain for our policy of WP:AGF on numerous occasions, so of course he isn't going to assume good faith. The point the anon user makes is quite apt. The only way for this to be taken as a threat is to take it out of context. Clearly this is one of those instances where the irony mark would be appropriate, if it existed. If you read the entire thread, he is being rhetorical in his analysis of the other comments. He is clearly wondering if the walled garden of the ID project is even aware that their pointy behavior is souring the subject to the point that they or their colleagues might go to the press. That's it, Cla68's statement can not possibly be construed as a threat if we applied Occam's Razor to the entire context of the discussion. No more than someone saying: "if you continue to smoke 10 packs of cigarettes a day, you'll get cancer" or "if you continue to lie about it you'll get caught one day." It is an observation, laced with irony, not a subtle attempt at threatening others. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll's contribution lacks evidence for many of his statements, particularly the most destructive claims. To be treated with a pinch of salt. Neıl 龱 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton1983's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

First, this seems to be mostly a duplicate of some of Felonious Monk's evidence, as they clearly used the same diffs and concluded that Cla68 somehow enjoyed it. I'll assume good faith and take it as a coincidence, but the fact that the same evidence is presented twice should not give it undue weight. Second, I think it is rather dangerous to psychoanalyze emotional states based off of one or two word edit summaries. It could be that Cla68 is enjoying it or it could be that he is truly shocked. It is important to note that some people genuinely feel like SV had a blind eye turned to her inappropriate behavior for many years. Being flabbergasted at the extent to which one finds that this happened is not a crime itself. Indeed, it is shocking because if it were any other editor, they would have been indef blocked by now. Arbcom should not try to divine what Cla68 was feeling when he discovered the evidence. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain ArbCom will not try to; and will not give undue weight to repeat-evidence here. But other than that, it's a good point to raise in analysis of evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his more recent addition, Ashton picks two points in which Cla68 referred to SV as having lied, and attempts to show that they are not actually lies and therefore that Cla68 has failed to assume good faith. At least for this arbitration I'd first like to suggest we drop these appeals to AGF, at the same time as SV's whole case is based on accusing Cla68 of "prolonged attempts to make the project a toxic place for others." This is not to denigrate the guideline or the concept which I think are extremely important, but to say at least in an RfC or ArbCom case where the whole point is to address editor behavior, that ABF as an infraction doesn't apply in the same manner. In terms of whether they are lies or not, I tend to agree these two are not lies, though the latter about living in Utah appears to be a careless comment. If the idea is that evidence of SV breaching community trust is lacking, however, I disagree, and I'd invite Ashton to address some of the other points in Cla68's evidence or my own. If he would explain how he came to take an interest in the case just over a month after joining Wikipedia that might also help.[118] Mackan79 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Tony Sidaway

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As I read TS he seems to be saying that Wikipedia needs to fight fire with fire, that incidental damage is to be expected, and that anything which gets in the way of this needs to be quashed. With respect for Tony’s greater experience to mine, this is in my view exactly what has gotten Wikipedia into some trouble in the last couple of years. Wikipedia is an academic undertaking, remains extremely appreciated and well-liked by the public, and in my view does much more to foster that good will (and indeed to undermine critics) by acting as a charity or a university would than as an entrenched political campaign. This also means, among other things, that we need a reasonable environment in which to edit, which incidentally seems to be all that Cla68 and some others of us are seeking. Mackan79 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His "evidence" is not worthy of much notice, given that it fails to include any actual evidence at all, just his own unsupported opinions. About all he's doing is spreading the meme to the effect that any ideas he dislikes can be discredited by claiming that they originated on the hated BADSITES. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think I agree with both Mackan and Dan here. Everyone involved in this has done a huge amount more for the project than I have, but seem to have lost sight of the forest for the trees. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony's evidence is not evidence at all; it is opinion and conjecture. Neıl 龱 10:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In communications with Tony about this, he indicated that (in my interpretation of his words) he feels it's evidence, because it's evidence of his opinion, regardless of the lack of any factual material (diffs, quotes and the like). I'm not sure I agree with that view. I think it's OK to let some opinion leak in to one's evidentiary statements, within reason, but that pure opinion doesn't belong in the evidence section, regardless of whose opinion it is. I'd say it was better placed in the workshop's principles or findings sections. I would urge ArbCom to disregard this "evidence" (quotes placed for pejorative effect) entirely. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is his opinion important enough to be evidence? I can only see that being true if he's a party, which he isn't...but he just added himself for some reason. I guess now we can use the fact that he contributes non-evidence as evidence as evidence of his failure to provide evidence... --NE2 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His adding himself as a party strikes me as spurious, a clerk should address that matter... ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the kind of evidence that doesn't need diffs...seems to me to be simply a summary of what should be well known as facts.--MONGO 14:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that they are not facts in the sense of being universally agreed to "ground truths" (to turn a phrase I heard somewhere :) ), they are in dispute. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I could just add "[attack redacted to protect the sensitivities of the thin-skinned]" to the evidence section, and I wouldn't have to back this up with anything? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bait not taken...--MONGO 17:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But point not addressed. Everything brought up before Arbcom as evidence needs to be supported in some way with diffs and/or links. If something is unsupported then it should be disregarded. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core principle of the encyclopaedia as a whole. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A man may go through life, systematically keeping out of view all that might cause a change in his opinions, and if he only succeeds... I do not see what can be said against his doing so. It would be an egotistical impertinence to object that his procedure is irrational, for that only amounts to saying that his method of settling belief is not ours. He does not propose to himself to be rational, and, indeed, will often talk with scorn of man's weak and illusive reason. So let him think as he pleases." -Charles Peirce, On the Fixation of Belief. Amerique^dialectics 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that we need a reasonable environment in which to edit, which incidentally seems to be all that Cla68 and some others of us are seeking So to create a "reasonable environment" he attacks others? Does that sound reasonable and rational to you? Does it sound like it would create a reasonable environment in which to edit?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your position may be improved if you tried to sound reasonable yourself. These articles may be helpful: argument, evidence. Amerique^dialectics 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filll, while Cla's exact methods are suboptimal, that doesn't mean he's wrong with everything. Right? If and when one of our top FA writers has serious concerns about other editors, we should listen carefully. Moreover, many of the allegations he makes and (more or less successfully) backs up with diffs have been brought up numerous times before and are shared by a fair amount of decent people (and of course also by many disgruntled trolls, vandals, harassers, etcpp - which is still not a reason to dismiss his input wholesale). dorftrottel (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your statement "If and when one of our top FA writers has serious concerns about other editors, we should listen carefully." But I'd also agree with a statement "If and when one of our top FA writers attempts to attack and intimidate other editors, we should hold them to account as we would anyone else." If writing FAs give someone get a free pass on conduct, I am willing to stand corrected. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Raymond, but a free pass for the one comment that he immediately clarified? It would be nice at least from my perspective if those criticizing Cla68 would clarify whether they're just talking about the news story, or if they're also trying to say he should never have taken any issue with the general editing patterns on these articles. Filll, for one, starts off talking about the first, but then clearly meanders into the second, claiming this shows that "Cla68 apparently reserves the right to personally mete out punishment as some form of 'frontier justice'".[119] And yet Filll's own comments, from just a few weeks:[120][121] [122] [123] [124] [125] Perhaps you're unfamiliar with this kind of commentary in these related articles, but when the same people who talk like this (I don't believe it includes you, but it isn't limited to Filll either) claim "intimidation" from Cla68 for whatever he's even supposed to have said, it's hard to know what to take seriously. Mackan79 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond, you're absolutely correct. Quality contributions are not a free pass for bad behaviour. dorftrottel (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The factual parts of my evidence are not in dispute. Cla68 has indeed relied upon, and sometimes included within his edits to Wikipedia articles, the most unreliable and abhorrent material from websites specifically set up to attack his fellow Wikipedians, and he has consistently represented these appalling attacks as worthy of consideration.

The fact that the opinions expressed in the evidence are my opinions is also undisputed. It is all therefore evidence of a factual nature, though some of it is facts about the opinion of a longtime observer of these attacks on Wikipedians by other Wikipedians and by trolls whose opinions those Wikipedians have chosen to amplify on Wikipedia. The only dispute can therefore be over the emphasis placed in my statement on certain facts that I feel others have either neglected or glossed over entirely.

By the way I am not saying that Wikipedia must "fight fire with fire". There is nothing in my evidence to support any call for extreme action. My advice would be to take certain similar recent cases involving long-respected contributors as a model.

Indeed I believe it is enough that the Committee make it plain that abhorrent behavior towards other Wikipedians, however good one's contributions are in other areas, is not permissible. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, there are no factual parts of your evidence - you have simply dumped a (hyperbolic and untrue) opinion piece onto the evidence page and stated "I believe this, so it's fact". No diffs/links = not evidence. Neıl 龱 18:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're denying that Cla68 has imported into Wikipedia unsuitable material from sites specifically set up to attack Wikipedians, I'm surprised. This is not a matter for dispute and certainly not a matter on which the Committee is likely to entertain serious doubts. -Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence of this, other than saying it is so? Your word is not sufficient proof. Neıl 龱 19:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not a matter of dispute (which is obviously in doubt here, since there are dissenting editors questioning your opinion) then perhaps you would be so kind as to provide specific diffs and outline exactly how those diffs support your "evidence"? --217.44.80.4 (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deny that "Cla68 has imported into Wikipedia unsuitable material from sites specifically set up to attack Wikipedians" as I'm not aware of any "sites specifically set up to attack Wikipedians", or that Cla68 has imported any "unsuitable material" from anywhere. Please be more specific in your evidence. Despite your alleging it is not a matter for dispute, it certainly is (a matter for dispute) and if it's not a matter that the committee entertains doubts about, then we've elected the wrong committee. ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is there according evidence or not? Has it been presented to the ArbCom? dorftrottel (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any (I don't know if there is), it has not been presented yet. Neıl 龱 09:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Just because attack sites with scathing parodies of Wikipedians are horrible does not mean we should ignore potential evidence of wrong doing that they have collected nor should any coincidentally similar evidence be dismissed. You can't rob a store and then complain that if a video that caught you in the act was made by someone with a stolen camcorder, it should not be used at the trial. Let the evidence stand on its own merit and if it can be proven, then where it came from is irrelevant. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what Tony is referring to is the Mantanmoreland case, and he's jumping to the erroneous conclusion that, because ~~the fix was in~~the outcome of the case in the end did not support the accusations, there was therefore never any legitimacy to the accusations and they are therefore entirely "unsuitable material". --Random832 (contribs) 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with randoms evaluation. Interestingly Mantanmoreland appears on his way to a site ban after some additional abusive sockpuppeting (shocked I am......not). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for asking, but could I have a brief explain of these two diffs, random? [126][127]. It would help (by shedding light on some of the beliefs floating round this case) to clarify what the replaced part "because the fix is in" was intended to convey or what belief of some user it referred to, in the original. (Not sarcastic, it's not entirely obvious and I feel given the nature of the case I'd like to ask directly rather than guess.) Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my observation that some recent cases have involved the use of cryptic code that has the effect, whatever the intention, of obscuring rather than illuminating. Explanation of the meaning of these obscure terms, in the context in which they are used, would always be welcome. FOr my own part, I'll state that obviously the issues I refer to have little to do with the Mantanmoreland case per se, though in that case as in others there is evidence of serious issues with Cla68's conduct. The outcome of that case was due, I think we can all agree, to some very careful thinking by the arbitration committee, and not to anything Cl68 did. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you're either kidding or— no, you're definitely kidding. dorftrottel (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, I find myself in agreement with Tony! Let's deconstruct and see why. The outcome of that case (a failure, and waste of the community's time that for the most part did not address the underlying issues, nor censure those protecting Mantanmoreland and his socks) was due to some very careful thinking by ArbCom (careful, yes, very very careful... but completely wise? maybe not so much) and not to anything Cla68 did (yes. They failed to listen. More's the pity, really, for if ArbCom had listened a bit more closely perhaps a fair bit of everyone's time would have been saved). I think what galls you the most, Tony, is how RIGHT Cla68 is about so many matters, and that admitting it would be very difficult for you and for others. Admitting one is wrong is always difficult, to be sure. However, repeating the meme that there are issues with his conduct is really rather of a red herring that no longer fools or distracts anyone. Stop repeating. Give some diffs... or find something else to say. Like maybe discussing what "obscure terms" you are referring to and giving some cites for their use and for your concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, my friend, you're claiming that I think the mantanmoreland case wasted the community's time? I disagree. I wish you wouldn't purport to represent my beliefs. Please don't play silly political games with Wikipedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know what you meant. I suppose I could have said "I strongly disagree", and just pointed out that they were false. but I decided it would be more interesting to show that your words, with the appropriate subtext (which subtext I know you disagree with, but which I suspect is actually far closer to the widely held views than the opposite) could be twisted around to be true, at least partly for the shock value of apparently agreeing when really I wasn't. To be clear then: I feel your summation is false on a number of levels. The case was a failure, and a waste of time. ArbCom's careful triangulation and avoidance of a finding of socking as well as avoidance of imposing meaningful remedies was a failure and a waste of time. Cla68's contributions to that case, and to other activities outside of articlespace such as RfCs, ANI discussions and the like, contrary to your characterization, have been extremely helpful, apt, sound, civil, well reasoned, and entirely within our norms and customs. If there are any exceptions, they are exceedingly minor. Tony, you have arrayed yourself on the wrong side, my friend. If there is anyone playing silly buggers here, it's you, not I. You need to internalise that, and move on. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony made a habit at the time of that case of disingenuously complaining about the abbrebiations like "MM", "SH", "GW" that were used in that case, ignoring that it would have been extremely tedious to type out the names (Mantanmoreland is 14 characters) in full dozens of times per paragraph, and the BLP issues inherent with spelling out the name that was abbreviated as "GW". I think this is almost certainly what he is referring to as "obscure terms" and "cryptic codes". --Random832 (contribs) 19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to find myself being accused of being "disingenuous". (I'm not disingenuous, just puzzled, dismayed and somewhat disgusted) because I queried the rampant use of cryptic initialisms, which if Random832 is to believed were some attempt to get around the libel laws. ("The BLP issues inherent with spelling out the name that was abbreviated as "GW"'"). Random832 means Gary Weiss and obviously the BLP issues are only there if you're being a bit of an arsehole about it, accusing him by dishonest means). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is not the same as Libel. And it's reasonable to be able to want to talk about the possibility without being sure whether it's true or not, whereas you only want it to show up on google for the name if you really are sure. And claiming REPEATEDLY to not know that "SH" means "SamiHarris" after being REPEATEDLY told what it is is nothing but disingenuous. --Random832 (contribs) 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. Tony was probably just playing silly buggers with the rest of the community. Use of initialisms saves time, and space, and it also is more BLP friendly in the long run. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't want to have to defend that wording (hence why I didn't leave it in place), but... It was very clear at the time that some arbitrators were relying on their own beliefs about the users in question rather than on the actual evidence - for example, in some instances the same arbitrators who were dismissing the evidence against them as being poor statistics were at the same time claiming that their own [definitely non-rigorous] gut feeling based on a body of text that none of us, and as far as I know not all of the other arbitrators, had seen, was that their writing styles indicated they were different (and not even acknowledging Durova pointing out that a professional writer can easily write in multiple 'voices'). Combined with the fact that some arbitrators who definitely had a conflict of interest did not recuse, all this does indeed point to it at least being a reasonable belief that the case was run in a somewhat biased manner. --Random832 (contribs) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Harrison's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tom Harrison's section adds to FM's allegation that Cla68 has wikistalked SV to four pages, with one or possibly two additional examples of AN discussions where he says Cla68 followed SV. Four full links with dates are provided, but at least three are from the same discussion in April of last year. Since no one has addressed this aspect of FM's evidence, I'll also note that the four pages there -- two policy pages (of which I believe SV has edited nearly all), Animal testing and Holocaust -- are each heavily edited, and that Cla68's edit to the last had nothing to do with SV (Cla has incidentally mentioned recently that a couple ID-related editors showed up and made helpful edits on articles he was working on, and that he took this as a show of good faith). In one article, then, we have Cla68 choosing to express disagreement with SV, for reasons that he explained on the talk page,[128] while the rest of this appears to be a lot more talk about virtually nothing.

As one other point, TH states that Cla68's comment about Swalwell was intended to draw attention to SV's believed location. Cla may respond, but this doesn't follow, and fails to consider the extent people have been fed up with broad attempts to "deny" that objectively harm the encyclopedia, particularly in a situation where the reasoning can't even be explained. At the same time, I recently witnessed SV asking another editor extremely politely how he'd feel if someone assembled his personal information from his edits and posted it on Wikipedia, while fully knowing this topic had made him extremely uncomfortable (point 9 here). In regard to Cla68, SV has said in his RfA that his behavior was so inappropriate she briefly wondered if he was WordBomb, whom she described as a "very abusive sockpuppet and cyber stalker." Was there subtext to any of these? Was SV trying to make PM uncomfortable? Of course there is a line; if Cla68 asked the same question on SV's talk page out of the blue I'd say he crossed it. Otherwise we generally AGF in these situations, if for no other reason than that differences in assessment seem to derive mostly from whose concerns one takes more seriously. Mackan79 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the Arbitrators

Is it within the remit of Arbcom to censure editors who bring evidence which is misleading, unsupported by diffs, unsupported by diffs given, disruptive or completely irrelevant? Considering the size of this case such evidence could only make the committee's job harder, so I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to warn editors against frivolous accusations and speculation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The aim of Arbitration cases, is roughly, that we're acting when the community hasn't handled a situation well and doesn't look like it will readily resolve the matter, or where it is urgent and divisive and needs some kind of categorical approach to prevent more harm. We try to find a reasonable way through most of the log-jam. That often includes looking at users whose conduct is somehow preventing that happening, or who act unhelpfully (perhaps in good faith but still unhelpfully) if necessary. So yes, we do look at all aspects that seem relevant, to try and understand what we might do at the given time, in the matter. That's general, and applies to all cases. And obviously sometimes, there may be claims that don't add much. It varies.

The other aspect of the answer is that how users act, also says a lot about how the dispute has managed not to be 'solved' so far, or hidden dynamics behind the scenes, or evidence of conducts that may have been hard to show clearly in /Evidence, and that's often useful or critical information too. It tells us what might not work, or pitfalls to be aware of, and can help clarify if some behavioral claim is well founded. (Classic case: user:DPetersons actions at RFAR (July-Aug 2007, arb+community banned) were the strongest evidence that he was indeed an edit warrior and sock-puppeteer with scant interest in communal norms. His misleading claims backed by diffs that supported nothing on the case pages, and constant personal attacks, disruption, and refusal to engage in dialog even at Arbitration, probably formed some of the best evidence that he was simply not going to listen to anything less than a ban.) We do aim to get a good understanding, and that's often useful to be aware of.

Final thing though, if it really does go too far (eg, it's just plain disruptive and "point proven"), then anyone can ask a clerk or arbitrator if they could say something, or deal with it. RFAR cases need to be fairly uncensored to do the job, and will give a lot more leeway than most pages, but even so, that probably shouldn't mean being a platform for blatant disgusting behavior that's already fully played out once on the pages and has been "seen through".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think it's clearly within the remit of ArbCom to do so if it wished. But going down the path of seriously digging into what evidence fits that description could make the case even longer... it may be better to trust to ArbCom's wisdom to disregard red herrings and come to sane and sound conclusions even in the face of some less than helpful input. ++Lar: t/c 11:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, even if some of the evidence on this page could be described in these terms, it doesn't address motive. Is it an attempt to disrupt? An attempt to discredit? Or do contributor's believe the correctness of their evidence is self-evident? I think if ArbCom starts grading the evidence it could discourage people from contributing it in the first place. --InkSplotch (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with lar and inksplotch. While tempting, it's not a path I think we'd like to be on. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are some users who habitually bring poor-quality evidence to arbitration and to other processes, and that this might be worth examining in its own case or in an RFC, but I don't think it's within the scope of this case. --Random832 (contribs) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely to be worth bothering about. If their evidence is poor quality, any evidence in the future will be likely to be more heavily scrutinised. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another small question to the Arbitrators

Do you actually get the chance to read these pages? There's an awful lot to plough through, and it occurred to me that it's at least possible some of you don't get the chance to read it before voting. Perhaps you could put my mind at rest by signing below? Thanks!

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, I for one read through the entire set of pages. (please pardon top posting just this once) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

varies by Arbitrator and by the type of work each person is doing on the case. When there's a lot it does sometimes get "skimmed", but you'd be surprised, we do notice things even on long workshop pages :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

does seem to vary! I'm heartened by the response from you, FT2 - and I recall that in a fairly recent matter you were the only respondent to an email I sent to the arbcom mailing list - I wonder if any other arbs could put their sig.s above? cheers (from a non-arb! sorry!), Privatemusings (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be bold, and suggest that no other arb has read this far - this relates to a point I'm going to try and make below about the functionality of pages like this! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your're wrong, but there's no particular need to comment, especially in a big bushel of noise like this page. Mostly we sit back, watch, listen, and think, and let everyone else do a lot of talking at this stage. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

happy to be wrong - chalk up another arb to the reading list! - your comments provoke some interesting questions in my mind - along the lines of what exactly are the stages of this process? does this process work well if described some three weeks in (maybe 4? can't remember!) as a 'big bushel of noise'? - and how long do the arbs plan on sitting back for? I think this case demonstrates a lack of clear direction and leadership in some of our processes - and I think the problem may be systemic.... this is all for another time and place of course - I'll see you there, when I can figure out where and when that is! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<- I think this page (and maybe this section) illustrate quite nicely an aspect of the current problems facing not just this arb case, but the system in general. It's hopeless! Jp's point above seems quite reasonable in a way, that the arb.s sit back and watch for 3 or 4 weeks before commenting... but now we're another 2 weeks down the line, with only one short comment from FT explaining that there have been delays for various (good) reasons. The effort put in by the community on wiki, and whatever voluminous exchanges are no doubt occurring on private wiki's and mailing lists, are not producing any momentum whatsoever - or at least no visible signs of progress in any way. I think everyone deserves better, and frankly I think it's a bit embarrassing. Ho Hum, I think we need an overhaul myself, and am pondering how best to propose some ideas..... any advice from anywhere is most welcome, in the unlikely event that I'm not simply talking to myself here - and what did they say that's a sign of again..... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There's so much going on here - I think it's at least possible that we lost the arbs a while back! - Privatemusings (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way that all the arbitrators are reading all of the material that's here. I presume they do something similar to what my classmates and I did in a college course with a particularly onerous reading list: we divvied up the reading assignments, each of us read a fraction of them and shared our notes with the others. In practice some of us read a lot and others read nothing and just mooched. Of course, I could be completely wrong here, and I intend no disrespect whatsoever. I would imagine there's also a lot of chatter going on behind the scenes on the mailing list. The key point is that the arbitrators have to focus on the critical questions: desysop or not; civility parole or not. It's hard to focus on that when you're reading evidence by 25 different users relating to the conduct of five different administrators (SV, FM, JzG, Viridae, Crum375). If anything, I hope for the arbitrators' own sanity that they haven't read every word of this mess. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of one of the absurdly long Mantanmoreland talkpages I also muttered something along the lines of "lets all give up, its not as if the Arbs are reading this" and was startled to discover a couple of them posting indignant "no we are" messages a few hours later. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forget now who it was, but in the most recent arbcom elections, one of the concerns about one of the sitting arbiters was that he had said that he never reads workshop pages. --B (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only Raul was reconfirming at the most recent one afaik. Viridae ^Talk 11:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that Raul was not, but I may be mistaken. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot the "ing" Viridae ^Talk 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this reads more as a "venting" page, than an evidence page. This happens in many ArbCom cases, so let editors have their say. The ArbCom is very probably quite familiar with all protagonists and will be able to make a good assessment and a suitable ruling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarity can lead to complacency and pre-judging based on opinion, if that argument is taken to its illogical conclusion. You're right that the arbs' experience will be invaluable in this case, but sometimes it's useful to have input on evidence from other parties, so you can look at things from an angle you hadn't before considered. This is especially useful in a massive case such as this, where there is a lot of evidence to analyse. But I suppose that ultimately it's up to the arbs as to which analysis they heed and which they do not, just as they will in considering the evidence. In the end it's nice to know that the Arbs (well, at least FT2) do read these pages since they represent the input of the community. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thanks to whoever did this section I was going to point all this out myself, but I made my friend her birthday dinner and came back to find it done for me. Viridae ^Talk 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"Protected Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (albeit on a version he disagreed with) [129] after he had previously reverted a change by SlimVirgin [130] and after another edit to the page the previous day [131]"

Protecting to a version one doesn't agree with does not show abuse to me but more shows willing to concede to someone else.

He edited the page not long before that so a neutral admin should have done the protection.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he also protected a version he didn't agree with. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter..that was one of the basis's for my desysopping...[132]--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Protected Wikipedia:No personal attacks [133] after now indefinitely banned editor Miltopia (banned by Jimbo Wales and others...[134]) edited the page, on a version that Viridae had argued in favor of previously [135]...see the version Miltopia had edit warred over just prior to the page protection by Viridae. [136] Viridae later made it clear he endorsed versions of the policy that were opposed to preventing external links from being used to harass our contributors.[137], [138] which coincides with his prior page protection on a similar version."

There was an edit war that MONGO himself was involved in. There was at least two weeks between Viridae's talk page comment and the protection. Secondly, this edit appears to me Viridae following consensus. I'm also failing to see how this was bad.

Admins must not protect pages they have had involvement in. That is why we have RFPP.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page comment made two weeks prior to protection with no activity on the page or the related talk page between the the protection is still involved? That's like getting into a content dispute with someone, then two weeks later they make a blatant personal attack on someone else and blocking them for that attack. The talk page comment and the protection are two completely different things. One was opinion, the other was process. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same...[139]--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any situations similar to the one mentioned above on that RFAR page. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverted a block made by JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 9/11 conspiracy theorist sock account Sannleikur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 5 days after the block was done by JzG[140]. Discussion as stated by JzG indicates Viridae did this to aggrevate."

I believe Viridae's unblock was correct given the lack of evidence provided against the sock originally. Secondly, JzG just claimed that Viridae did that to piss him off. However, that's a claim not backed by evidence. If one were to wheel war me (with valid reason), I could easily say that person did that just to spite me and assume bad faith like JzG did.

Sure...JzG was able to see an obvious 9/11 CT POV pusher and as had happened numerous times, Viridae's response was to unblock, immediately..(see Felonious Monks evidence as well) after posting a comment about socks being blocked by JzG at wikipedia review.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately? JzG's block was made on the 19th. The unblock was made in the 25th. 6 day gap there. I would have unblocked too considering the initial lack of evidence, does that make me abusive? Kwsn (Ni!)

07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after he posted at WR about it...yeah...see FM's evidence regarding this as well as I said.--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IN this case there was no evidence of sockpuppetry given despite a request for evidence from JzG. He simply deleted my request for evidence and swore at me. Since there was to that point no indications of sockpuppetry and the blocking admin didnt have anything to give, I unblocked. Viridae ^Talk 13:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverted 5 more blocks made by JzG without discussion...full thread at AN/I here."

Leaves out this discussion here and here (the actual CU request, which cleared the people of being socks, which JzG supposedly missed. The blocks themselves were originally discussed here, with serious questions regarding JzG's actions posed here

Admins should not unblock blocked editors withouit first contacting the blocking admin or gaining a consensus first via a noticeboard.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you got blocked as a sock, then it was found via CU you weren't, wouldn't you want to be unblocked right away or wait for a discussion and further decrease your motivation to come back? Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell arbitrator JPGordon he's wrong about admin needing to discuss rolling back other admin actions "OK, now sit down. There's a difference between "standing up for the rights of many", and specifically targeting the actions of an admin based upon discussion at an attack site. As already stated, there are well over a thousand admins here; any one of them would have been a better candidate to analyze Guy's actions than Viridae. This sort of cowboy play doesn't work well either for developing consensus or developing community. Reverting admin actions without discussion is the sort of thing that inevitably leads to desysopping; are we sure that's the direction we want to take this?" [in this thread--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO take a look at the thread I mentioned in that one - where the CU results were posted. It had been discussed to death, there was strong support for the unblocks based on the CU clearing those five. I simply happened to be the next admin along when the unblock was requested, something JzG couldnt handle - he of course took it as a personal insult that his blocks had been overturned. Viridae ^Talk 13:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point is...why you?--MONGO 15:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was clearly explained at the time, I happened to catch the request to have them unblocked on my watchlist. As noted above JzG cannot stand to have his judgement questioned by anyone - so no matter who overturned they would have got a similar response. Viridae ^Talk 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"[141] Misused rollback after I removed a comment from SlimVirgin's page regarding Cla68...I had been asked privately to remove it."

If SV privately asked MONGO to remove the edit... how was Viridae supposed to know it was supposed to be gone?

It should be obvious by my edit summary prior to Viridae's misuse of rollback (only use rollback to revert obvious vandalism BTW) that Slim was simply tired of Cla68 related threads on her talkpage.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the fact remains there was no evidence she had asked you to remove it. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what... my edit wasn't vandalism anyway...rollback is to be used only to revert vandalism.--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually removing or refactoring someone else talk page comments on someone elses talk page without their permission is vandalism! Viridae ^Talk 12:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section says you shouldn't remove people's comments without permission. No public permission from SV was given for you to remove them, nor did Cool Hand Luke say it was ok for you to do it from what I can see. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rollback feature makes it clear...my edit wasn't vandalism by any stretch.--MONGO 03:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... run that by me again? CHL is a user in good standing... SlimVirgin did not request the removal that anyone can see publicly, so your characterizing what was done as problematic is quite a stretch. Slim's undoing it is fine, her page. But your undo said merely "CHL, please...I think there has been enough regarding Cla68 here"... that is not for you to decide. If your summary included a "per private request" notation, that would be different. You're stretching for fault I think. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no abuse presented by the evidence here, not that I can tell anyway. Kwsn (Ni!) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[142]"Overloooking the gross incivility given your circumstances, however you didnt provide the requested evidence so I have unblocked. Please remember that wikipedia is not therapy." (during the period immediately following the death of JzG's father and after JzG had reverted him [143]...see above at User:Sannleikur block JzG did on 9/11 CTer.

In this particular exchange, all the incivility I can see is on the part of JzG, who said "Fuck off back to Wikipedia Review". I'm sorry about the death of his father, but that unfortunately does not give you an unlimited "Get Out of Incivility Free Card". *Dan T.* (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had almost the same set of diffs ready that FM has posted but didn't notice his evidence until after I started posting mine...I saw no reason to repeat the same info, hence the shortness of my section about Viridae. The combined evidence is pretty indicative that Viridae is hardly an explenary administrator.[144]--MONGO 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplary? (as opposed to ex-plenary). We have very few exemplary administrators - this is why they are known as exemplary. I would agree the evidence confirms Viridae is not exemplary. I do not believe it suggests he is an unusually poor administrator. Your evidence - the below for example - is also not examplary:

(from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Viridae_is_incivil - [145]"Overloooking the gross incivility given your circumstances, however you didnt provide the requested evidence so I have unblocked. Please remember that wikipedia is not therapy." (during the period immediately following the death of JzG's father and after JzG had reverted him [146]...see above at User:Sannleikur block JzG did on 9/11 CTer.

Viridae was right to contact Guy - had he not informed Guy that a block he had made had been undone, Viridae would have been pilloried for not following WP:BLOCK. And the diff from Guy that you dismiss as "a revert" ([147]) had the pithy edit summary "Fuck off back to Wikipedia Review". It was at this point Viridae (possibly ill-advisedly) left a second note saying he would overlook the incivility, and to note that Wikipedia is not therapy. The follow up edit from Guy ([148]) was again far worse ("Fuck off and never ever post here ever again, period. You are persona non grata"). It was at that point I blocked Guy for 24 hours ([149]) and asked him not to use foul edit summaries again, which was, of course, swiftly reverted (both my note and the block itself). Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#More_diffs_raised_on_ANI and evidence on this RFArb contain numerous, numerous examples of Guy's conduct continuing since the filing of the RFC concerning his behaviour. This suggests he either a) has failed to learn to conduct himself civilly, b) believes he can get away with it in the current climate, or c) honestly believes his conduct is appropriate. If it's a) or b), there is still scope for improvement. If it's c), the conclusion is Guy can't be trusted with the admin tools, at the very least. Enablement from a minority of editors probably contributes heavily to Guy's issues (plenty of examples of this on this very page). Neıl 龱 10:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, no one else is better fit to "deal" with these alleged issues of Guy than Viridae, of course. I think the evidence that Viridae has been looking for, gunning for, seeking out reasons to, "do something" about Guy are pretty evident and one would have to be blind to not see them. As I stated, my evidence presentation was stopped by me since Felonious Monk already had even more than I did and there was no reason to repeat it.--MONGO 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just note that the "wikipedia is not therapy" was a badly worded way of saying "you are still required to take responsibility of your admin actions regardless of your personal circumstances - if you can't then please don't perform them" I know it was taken the wrong way, and apologise for that. Viridae ^Talk 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it would have been better if you had said that. Neıl 龱 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THat was explained at the time though. Viridae ^Talk 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Wikigiraffes

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a freshly registered account through which BLP violations were made at Julian Baggini. The "evidence" presented by Wikigiraffes contains no hint of any misbehaviour on SlimVirgin's part, quite to the contrary. Her sound decision to revert the BLP-violating additions was not just editorial discretion, but in fact the editorial duty of anyone who has the page watchlisted (which she as the original article creator most likely has). A short discussion at the article talk page resulted in general agreement both with the revert and the article protection. 78.34.142.24 (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (= dorftrottel (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I'm agreeing with Dorf here, but one good incident does not excuse a long running past of bad ones. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I wasn't giving the impression of trying to do that. Quite to the contrary, I think most of the evidence is 100% valid and thoroughly confirms the existence of a long-running problem. All the more, it's imho important to weed out any invalid accusations so as to prevent them from spoiling —or from being used to illegitimately discredit— the valid ones. dorftrottel (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a slightly longer message on Dorftrottel's talkie page -but the one point I would like to make here is that I was NOT challenging the "decision to revert the BLP-violating additions". To say that this was what I was doing is to misunderstand my position. I was challenging the decision to block me from further editing of the page. The only justification of rthis would have been had I ried to 'revert' the edits, which I did not.

Secondly, I have protested the tampering by 'persons unkown' of the edit history. As I recall events unfolding, all my edits were deleted by Hickluhup, (who has now dmysteriously disappered as a user). Slim did not therefore save the Wikipedia from my edits, as they had already gone. He merely blocked me from editing the page. That was the complaint. This ruling does not seem to me to address it.

86.220.76.189 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this sums up my position rather nicely! "Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute."

Perhaps I should just confirm that the above comment 86.220.76.189 is mine.

Wikigiraffes (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The posting at my talk page can be found here, my reply is here. dorftrottel (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Neil has noted here Wikigiraffes has now been blocked indefinitely by SlimVirgin. I endorse this block completely and would have blocked him myself. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of evidence presented by FM (analysis by Viridae)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Moved to /Evidence per note left for me by Viridae, and his comments below. If incorrect, please revert. Updated link: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Analysis of evidence presented by FM (analysis by Viridae). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Viridae, this is getting out of hand. "If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section." on the evidence page. Please don't use the workshop page for this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats a better idea - will move it when im finished. I was however just taking a lead from the above sections. Viridae ^Talk 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually can I have a clerk weigh in about how they would like to see this done? Viridae ^Talk 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just a simple duplicate (+ heavy formatting) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Viridae. If so, just delete it and link to the evidence page in its place. If not, update the evidence page. (Evidence is easier to read without all the bold, BTW). My $0.02. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a duplicate with the addition of Viridae's responses to each point in bold. I would suggest instead of bold, using a different colour (say, italic and blue); it's easier on the eye than the bold. Neıl 龱 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a duplicate of the evidence from FM about me with my comments in bold. If someone could show me how to do a colour, I will do that instead of bold. Viridae ^Talk 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V states that he "used to stop by CAT:RFU frequently." This is his reasoning for his unblock on "Heatedissuepuppet." This is not supported by the facts - specifically, prior to his unblock of Heatedissuepuppet on 16 May 2007, he unblocked 17 times to reblock, 5 of his own blocks, 1 time to revert Fred Bauder's blocking test, 3 autoblocks, and then, in January 2007, over 4 months prior to his May unblock, a Cat:RFU unblock (70.83.4.91). After the Heatedissuepuppet unblock, it does appear that V becomes active in RFU, but the Heatedissuepuppet hardly indiciative of a user that "used to stop by CAT:RFU frequently," as opposed to a user that "seeks out ways to countermand JzG at all costs." PouponOnToast (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a useful methodology. The VAST majority of cases that anyone handles at CAT:RFU result in declining the request. So to determine whether Viridae was cherry picking JzG's blocks, you would want to see how many unblock requests he/she handled. So if he/she handled 20 total requests and 10 of them were JzG's, that might be an issue. If he/she handled 200 total requests and 5 of them were JzG's, that's not an issue. Even this is a meaningless methodology from a statistics standpoint for a number of reasons, but at least gives us more interesting data to look at. After all, the same statistics could be used simply to claim that if Viridae overturns JzG more than anyone else, that the underlying cause is that JzG makes more questionable blocks than anyone else. (I'm not making this argument, just saying that it is one possible interpretation of the data.) --B (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the threemonth and a half prior to the 16 May 2007 Heatedissuepuppet edit, Viridae did not reject a single unblock request. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the day before that unblock, Viriday rejected a request from Lewisskinner - 20:15, 15 May 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Lewisskinner‎ (→Blocked: unblock reviewed). A cursory glance at Viridae's edit summaries in user talk edits shows that he/she reviewed plenty of unblock requests. --B (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That review began after the Heatedissuessock block review was accepted. I do see an April 1 request that V took from a user he had dealt with before, and two in early march, so my timeframe was overstated. My point that V did not "stop by CAT:RFU frequently," however, holds. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually - but 1. most of the time other people beat me to the unblock or decline (the contents of CAT:RFU are reported to an IRC channel) and 2. I wouldnt always unblock unless I was pretty clear about what was going on - leave it to someone else who might know more. Viridae ^Talk 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tony Sidaway's evidence regarding Cla68~~
~~[~~This is a placeholder for a planned analysis of Tony's evidence I hope to get to soon.~~ Others are welcome to contribute.] alanyst ^/talk/ 17:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Per Alanyst's invitation above: Even after reading the diffs, I would suggest that reaching the conclusion "It is reasonable to assume that at this point, at least, Cla68 had internalized the attacks on Slim Virgin and Gary Weiss that apparently reside on the defamation site and was operating on the assumption that these attacks were justified and that Wikipedia pages should be used to promote them", based on those assumptions (inferences?), requires a leap-of-faith. I'm skeptical about whether such would be considered a leap-of-good-faith. --RexxS (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in the diffs, some of which have apparently been deleted for good reason. By that time he had widely advertised the site and was acting, in effect, as an unofficial publicist for its defamatory claims about Gary Weiss. --Jenny 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be offended if I said that (even after reading the diffs) I found your assertion about someone else's actions to be less than an inescapable conclusion? Yours faithfully, --RexxS (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony is far too rational, disinterested and clearheaded to have ever uttered something so presumptuous; I suspect you are confusing him with a relative newcomer, a sultry and mysterious femme fatale called Jenny. The Fat Man has a thing for telepathic women and wonders if she'll be on IRC later.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Analysis by Alanyst~~
~~I will present certain items (not all) as Tony wrote them, and comment on them within indented bullet points. Apologies for length. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
07:31, 25 October 2006 Insert a strongly slanted item about a suit for defamation raised over a BusinessWeek article written by Gary Weiss, which was later settled without exchange of damages. Cla68's item does not accurately describe the settlement, or even acknowledge its existence, although the joint press release of both parties outlining the dispute and its resolution is available in full in his cited source.
I do not perceive a "strong slant" to Cla68's words; he succinctly describes the dispute and its resolution in neutral terms, which clearly noted that the person bringing the case dropped the accusations against Weiss. He did not mention that the case was dropped as part of a settlement, but this is just as likely to be a bland editorial decision than a piquant act of provocation. It's a borderline WP:UNDUE concern, but it was only two sentences in a decent-sized article. Tony needs to justify his phrase "strongly slanted" with specific quotes.

23:54, 29 October 2006 Accuses another editor of bad faith edits over removal of the item
I concur that this is probably a premature accusation of bad faith, apparently resulting from suspicion over the editor's deletion of the article's only cited material without discussion first.

07:31, 25 October 2006, 05:16, 30 October 2006 Accuses the other editors of the article of sharing "very common interests and goals", then tweaks that to "close mutual interests and goals" [I have combined these two bullets by Tony.]
A pretty benign characterization; certainly much less inflammatory than accusing them of puppetry would have been. Not terribly helpful, but nowhere near worthy of sanction.

07:53, 30 October 2006 Nominates Gary Weiss for deletion, saying "I've never seen an article more obviously being used for promtion of the article's subject. Classic example of the genre." [150]. No attempt to dispute resolution. No request for discussion at WP:COIN. AfD was subsequently deleted by User:Jimbo Wales, apparently because on that page Cla68 linked to a site containing defamatory statements about Gary Weiss.
[This is Tony's comment.] It is reasonable to assume that at this point, at least, Cla68 had internalized the attacks on Slim Virgin and Gary Weiss that apparently reside on the defamation site and was operating on the assumption that these attacks were justified and that Wikipedia pages should be used to promote them.
[This is Alanyst's comment.] As others have pointed out, it's not evident from the above diffs that Cla68 was trying to attack anyone; his behavior at Gary Weiss seemed aimed at balancing the article with properly sourced criticism, which other editors denounced as proxying for WordBomb.

00:19, 16 May 2007 promotion of Bagley's defamatory accusations against Gary Weiss despite the BLP, under the guise of "fair and neutral" reporting
I don't see where Cla68 is promoting Bagley's accusations; he's citing the New York Times and other reputable sources about the dispute between Weiss and Overstock; his description of the dispute seems pretty neutral to me. Cla68 tells Samiharris, "You are clearly advocating for Weiss' side in the matter. I'm advocating for both sides. The "off-wiki" attacks by Byrne (or his supporters) and Weiss on each other are a big part of the story here. I'd like it to be depicted neutrally, fairly, and completely." (Emphasis in original.) I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of Cla68's words here, and Samiharris, a Weiss defender, didn't seem to regard Cla68's arguments as improper ("I am glad that you agree that the wording is correct and am pleased that this is a resolution."). The exchange ended amicably; I'm not clear how this is supposed to show Cla68 in a bad light.

06:13, 11 July 2007 continues to push the issue in July
Cla68 had withdrawn from the article, but Samiharris continued to push the issue outside the article's talk page, telling Jayjg on Jayjg's talk, "The paragraph is inoffensive but has potential to be a troll magnet," as justification for removing it. Jayjg replied "I suspect" WP:NPF would apply. Samiharris then removed the paragraph without discussing it at the talk page. Cla68 can be forgiven for inquiring why Samiharris had deleted the paragraph that he had agreed to just weeks before. Samiharris responded to Cla68's inquiry, and then Mantanmoreland chimed in to give an appearance of consensus against Cla68. We know now that Samiharris and Mantanmoreland were coordinated accounts; perhaps because of this false appearance of consensus, Cla68 did not further pursue this line of inquiry at the time.

13:29, 17 October 2007 and again in October
Cla68 brought it up because of the ArbCom decision about attack sites, which he said established parameters for referencing an external site critical of Weiss. He had also brought it up in September because a new source was available from the news media. The pattern was that Cla68 would bring up the topic when circumstances seemed to have changed, would be opposed mainly by Samiharris/Mantanmoreland (often with accusations of proxying for WordBomb), and drop the matter until circumstances changed again.

Block log, 21 October 2007: Blocked for continued violation of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point on Talk:Gary Weiss
The sequence of events is notable: after the 17 October exchange noted above, Cla68 wrote that he was considering an RfC. Samiharris preemptively opened it with his own slanted take on the dispute ("Editor desires to add material... that makes personal attacks"). Various editors commented (including Samiharris's alter ego, Mantanmoreland) with some initial rancor but some good engagement too. Then JzG archived the discussion; G-Dett mildly objected but Durova supported JzG. Then Jimbo arrived and said, "no nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight". Cla68 asked Jimbo for a reason for his instruction and Durova immediately blocked Cla68—a terrible block, in my hindsight-aided opinion. Jimbo thought the block might be excessive but he told Cla68, "I fear that you have been manipulated by lying stalkers and trolls". In light of the Mantanmoreland case, it seems that Cla68 was not the one (or at least, the only one) being manipulated, and deserves no stronger rebuke than those who uncritically took Mantanmoreland/Samiharris's side in the dispute.
~~Analysis by Mackan79~~
I've looked at this independently of Alanyst's comments above, with some overlap, but I believe the problems go further. In the first edit,[151] relating to Gary Weiss, Tony says that Cla68's edit was strongly biased and failed to note a settlement discussed in the source. He seems to miss entirely where Cla68 clearly stated that the lawsuit was withdrawn, or that the settlement is also reported to involve BusinessWeek praising Robertson's company in a joint press release. The phrase "felt were erroneous and malicious" could be called POV, but is hardly awful, particularly compared with much worse edits from Mantanmoreland that Tony is fully aware of and has strongly defended.[152][153] The next four edits listed by Tony are all based on this. The next edit Tony lists is where Cla68 nominated Gary Weiss for deletion on the basis of COI, which as Cla68 has explained was at that time one basis for deletion independent of notability (re Mantanmoreland, see also this, irrelevant to Cla68 but relevant to Tony's inconsistent accusations). In the next edit, Tony says this edit promotes "defamatory allegations" (of a living person) "under the guise of 'fair and neutral' reporting." Besides the bizarre and entirely unsupported accusation of dishonesty, and the violation of BLP while appealing to that policy, Tony's edit does not remotely support his claim and in fact does not show Cla highlighting any allegations but rather discussing the article more than reasonably. The next two edits are no different. Regarding Weiss, this leaves finally Durova's block which was to my knowledge based purely on the comment here, and surely should have ended that matter.
In the next section, Tony accuses Cla68 of various assumptions of bad faith. The first edit is alleged to show quotes about State of Fear and Michael Chrichton not actually found in the edit listed.[154] The dif is a particularly poor match for the Tony's allegation, which also has political undertones although Tony denied this. Tony states that the second edit shows the first time Cla68 appeared to join the "campaigns against SlimVirgin," shortly after she is said to have "raised Cla68's problematic behavior with respect to Gary Weiss on Cla68's RFA." That would be accurate only if SV's statement that "[t]here was a serious concern a few months ago that Cla68 was either a sockpuppet of banned User:Wordbomb (a very abusive sockpuppet and stalker) or was helping him"[155] is considered only to be raising his "problematic behavior," and if Cla's asking why an RfC was deleted before withdrawing the question amounts to joining a "campaign." In Tony's third listed edit,[156] he states that Cla68 admits in the RfC he started on himself to have "acted on the basis" of something on the "defamation site," and Tony again goes on to bizarrely state that Cla68's "intent is evidently to further those attacks, and to justify his earlier attacks by appealing for support" -- as opposed perhaps to wanting to set the record straight following his RfA in which he and his actions had been throughly assaulted. This also gets to SV's statements in that RfC, discussing facts he "conveniently omitted," saying she believes "Cla68 is associated with the banned user Wordbomb, someone who has cyber-stalked and threatened people on and off Wikpedia," and saying "it's clear from the diffs that Cla68 has tried to help WordBomb with his harassment, either because he's sympathetic to WordBomb, or because of poor judgment" (emphasis added). Following FloNight's statement there are edits which at least seem to be as claimed in each. However the "assumption of bad faith" continues to be remarkably absent, along with for that matter anything close to violating any other policy or guideline. Some of the links -- calling this a personal attack, and calling this a mischaracterization of SV's comment as a personal attack -- continue to test credulity. Presenting edits such as this as showing "Gross and very broad assumptions of bad faith" seem, charitably, to show simply a complete inability to fathom that editors could see real real and serious fault in the events listed. The final allegations, with edits said to show Cla68 improperly edited policies even after being "rebuffed" to retroactively justify his actions many months earlier, are simple nonsense, incorrect and unsupported by any of the diffs provided.
Finally Tony offers two sections of evidence regarding commentary on Wikipedia Review, and then listing editors who have commented in a forum regarding SlimVirgin. With this, it appears he mainly would like some directive that editors not participate in this forum, or possibly any forum related to a specific editor. Why he lists all editors who have commented in order to achieve that directive is not stated.
In short, Tony's evidence goes beyond "weak" to irresponsible. The first section, alleging poor editing relating to Gary Weiss is inaccurate and hypocritical compared to Tony's unwavering defense of Mantanmoreland's editing. In the second, Tony accuses Cla68 of assuming bad faith, primarily by assuming Cla68's bad faith, but also by misrepresenting his statements and willfully ignoring that strong personal allegations had in the first instance clearly come from SV. In the third sections, as well as previously, Tony seems so caught up in defending SV as to be blind to the manner in which he is smearing and attacking others, or to the possibility that others could reasonably disagree with his views. Alternatively, Tony has specifically said that he does not believe he needs to balance the issues in this case since he is not an arbitrator. In either case, I have no issue with who or what Tony wishes to defend, but when it turns into vaguely lashing out at other editors in this manner I think it is a problem in its own right ArbCom should address. Mackan79 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments by Others~~
Thanks Alanyst. I don't find the evidence put together by tony/ant/jenny to be compelling of poor behavior by Cla68. Could a few of his comments have been phrased better, likely. Did he extensively edit war, threaten, bully, sock, personalize disputes, recruit meat puppets, and other inappropriate behavior to 'win' disputes? I'm not seeing it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Str1977's evidence~~
Str1977's evidence regarding SlimVirgin seems to be trying to defend her, but ends up damning her instead; therein, evidence is shown that Slim differs enormously in the constructiveness and civility with which she deals with legitimate concerns about image policy depending on whether she judges the person making the complaint as a "friend" or a "foe". In other words, it's the usual "us vs. them", "good guys vs. bad guys" mindset problem that's at the root of many of the disputes in this RFA, with a huge dollop of BADSITES thrown in as people's participation in the Eeeeeeeevil attack sites figures heavily into their treatment by Slim and her friends. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reflection by the parties~~
~~This section is reserved for parties to post a short statement reflecting on the Evidence presented against themselves. See also this proposed finding of fact.~~
~~Reflection by Cla68~~
I've commented on FeloniousMonk's (FM) and other evidence here [157] and in the paragraph immediately above that section. In summary, I stated that I don't think FM's evidence is actually evidence of much wrongdoing on my part. Nevertheless, I did provide a response or explanation for some of the evidence presented. In addition, I admitted to several uncivil comments or personal attacks and apologized. Cla68 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reflection by {Username}~~
~~General discussion~~
~~Remarks by Alanyst~~
These may be really crazy or stupid ideas, or they might be unconventional enough to work where traditional approaches would falter. I offer them in this section since IMO they're not sufficiently refined for the actual proposals section. Feel free to critique heavily. I offer these in good faith and if this section proves to be a liability to this case, I invite clerks to remove it and let the rest of the case proceed.
Without further ado, my thoughts:
A lot of the case focuses on misuse of admin tools across the board, with evidence to support many of the claims of misuse. How about a remedy where all involved administrators are desysopped without prejudice and encouraged to re-apply immediately (or after a short interval on the scale of days or weeks)? By not favoring any party it might make the sanction more palatable. And then the community can decide whom they trust with the tools.

If I had to characterize this case and the ID project case in three words, they would be "atmosphere of suspicion". The fault line seems to be the editors' tolerance level for Wikipedia Review: JzG, SlimVirgin, and FeloniousMonk all hate the site, while Cla68 and Viridae have accounts there and have taken seriously some of the complaints voiced there by banned editors. (Perhaps this WR factor is the unspoken reason that the cases were combined?) The long-running disputes in this case all seem to be polarized into WR-tolerant and WR-intolerant camps. (Struck; I am persuaded that WR is not the core issue. 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)) Is there a way to bridge the divide? Two ideas:
If there are any editors that both camps regard as sufficiently neutral, knowledgeable, and fair, they can be commissioned as a long-term mediation team that adjudicates disputes and grievances between the camps without the drama of AN/I, RfC, or arbitration requests. All parties would need to pledge to abide by the judgments of that team or else be asked to leave the project.

Alternatively, each of the involved parties would be required to select one person from the other camp (not necessarily one of the parties to this case) as the sanctioned "ambassador" to them who is free to voice concerns and offer criticism without being accused of harassment, trolling, or otherwise acting in bad faith. (If you will, think of a court jester who can be frank when others need to be circumspect.) Everyone else from the other camp would be required to keep their distance to avoid conflict. If a party and/or their ambassador refuse to work together in good faith, both would be given simultaneous involuntary blocks that increase over time.
~~Okay, so that's it. I concede my idiocy in advance. Ready, aim, ... alanyst ^/talk/ 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
"Just stay away from each other" only works if the disputed actions do not result in harm to innocent third parties. Even if "WR-tolerant" admins are ordered not to undo admin actions by "WR-intolerant" admins, it doesn't change the underlying problem that the latter are undertaking inappropriate, or at least controversial, admin actions. This isn't just a dispute over WR. --B (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but that's the purpose of the mediation team or ambassador, to keep an avenue open for raising such concerns without coming across as needlessly provocative or making a big public hoo-hah of things. If those avenues fail to resolve the problem, or if others in the community are also concerned, they can take it through the normal dispute resolution processes. It seems to me that the pervasive distrust has its epicenter at the WR issue, but undermines the normal DR processes even for disputes not directly related to WR, and a custom DR process is needed to inhibit the volatility of the parties' interactions. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the normal dispute resolution process and I have offered evidence of abuse of the administrative tools that has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia Review. Just saying stay away from each other would be like solving the problem of high gas prices by not talking to your mother in law. Admittedly, there are probably significant advantages, but it is unrelated to the problem of high gas prices. --B (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't mean to suggest that the mediation/ambassador ideas were meant to address misuse of administrator privileges, and you're quite correct in saying that the "avoid each other" approach isn't appropriate for resolving that concern. My desysopping idea was aimed at that particular problem. Sorry if that was unclear. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an innovative idea. The parties would have to agree, and further, per B, the mediation team/ambassador/special master/whatever would have to have the power to undo actions made by the parties (if documented/supported/whatever... details need work to be sure but the undo is so that things that affect innocents get fixed) without the parties subsequently wheel warring about it. I would offer my services, but I'm not sure what camp I'm in. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Some very good ideas here. Maybe the best choice would be to create a committee consisting of some people allied in some way with each of the two "camps", and some people not allied with either of them, but all chosen for an ability to get along with others of diverse views, and be fair, reasonable, and open-minded. I get along with a number of people on both sides of the WP/WR fence, but there are also people on both sides of the fence that I don't get along with at all, so I might be too contentious to be a possibility for this committee myself (but I'd consider the position if nominated). User:Privatemusings might be a good choice for the committee due to his ability to get people on all sides together in a mostly cooperative way on his podcast series. User:GTBacchus is another possibility, somebody I haven't always agreed with but have always found to be fair-minded. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god, it'll be like jury selection. We'll have to set up a pool of fifty editors, and each side can take it in turns to vote someone off until we have ten left. I suspect Lar, like myself, would get voted off post-haste for having a WR account. Neıl 龱 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just having a WR account does not make one anything in particular, except open minded enough to accept input about what needs fixing wherever it can be found, and patient enough to separate the wheat from a great deal of chaff. But I repeat myself ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be a fair, representative group, there ought to be some with WR accounts. What's needed is people willing to straddle both worlds, and be both cooperative with and critical of people on both sides when it's warranted. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would wholeheartedly endorse Privatemusings in such a position, for one. Dr. e X treme 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Also, I agree both with the general proposal and also with User:B's comments that there are underlying issues completely unrelated to WR. dorftrottel (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I'll go farther than that. I feel there are those here using "WR", "stalk" and other codewords as red herrings. The general issue in this matter is how things are done here, not what is said elsewhere, and WR should not even be dignified as a side issue. Here's a clue: when you see someone say "nothing but trolls" or the like, it's a signal that they don't have any real arguments and are just using invective and opinion and code words to try to sway things. Ignore them, focus on the actual evidence and the patterns of behaviour it shows. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[De-indent.] Bringing up WR was probably not the best thing, but what I was trying to get at is that at the heart of this case, there are two main factions: one whose members are bold if not downright aggressive in their on-wiki interactions, and who brook little criticism; the other with members who are sensitive to the side effects of the actions of the first group, and are not shy about criticizing them when they believe them to have gone too far. My perception is that participation in the criticism at WR was the deal-breaker for assuming good faith, as far as JzG and Viridae are concerned, and the same goes for Cla68, SlimVirgin, and FeloniousMonk. If I'm wrong about that, it's not a big deal anyway; what's important is that AGF has broken down and the core issue seems to be how one faction takes criticism and how the other faction gives it, and what's legitimate criticism and what's harassment. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alanyst, you might be right that the two fractions issue is part of the problem, but it is not the whole problem, and as such, the issues would continue for groups that are not on WR, but still disagreeing with the above menitioned admins. This issues is already going on since far before WR became a hot potato on WP, and has driven many more people away who never even had heard of WR. For example, they started to accuse me of posting on WR, while I barely had heard of it, and it was a tactic to get someone shown in bad light, so that they could call you toxic, disruptive, trolling etc. This issues is only going to be resolved if the admins in question get desysoped, and leave the project. Previous arbcom's have bend backward to save some of these admins in the light of overwhelming evidence (case to complex, let give general amnesty; all admins are reminded; etc.), and I am sure that this arbcom will do the same. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bent backward? Do the same? Let's not jump to that conclusion. I prefer to AGF about ArbCom... seriously. I remain hopeful that with the preponderance of evidence here now showing that there is a clear pattern of corrosive behaviour, ArbCom will not just give amnesty or remind folk in airy terms, but will actually deal with this longstanding and festering issue. As I believe I have said elsewhere, I have been contacted privately before by many different good, hardworking, well respected editors indicating that they refrain from trying to correct NPOV issues, refrain from policy discussion, refrain commenting about matters, even important ones, if certain parties to this case are involved, because they have seen how unpleasant getting into conflict with certain of the editors in this case has been for others, and further, that they refrain from commenting about THAT because of the fear of revenge. I'd go so far as to say it's an open secret among some. The vast majority of these editors are upstanding content contributors who have nothing to do with WR, or with recurring dramas of any sort. I won't name names because I was explicitly asked not to, but it's more than just a few. If ArbCom doesn't take notice of the pattern here I will be much surprised and dismayed. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar, thank you for your response. I did not send you an e-mail, but the items you mention above are exactly why I am not an editor anymore here at WP. Unfortunately, I do not have faith in the dispute resolution process at WP anymore after to many bad experiences, although some of the newer cases give me a bit more hope. If I still had hope, I would participate in it and be editing here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the MML case? In it, evidence has been provided that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Gary Weiss has been editing his own biography, and employed multiple sockpuppets to do it. But not only did the ArbCom ignore the COI issue, they also gave the Mantanmoreland account a slap on the wrist, compared to the massive evidence, let alone take any action whatsoever against those who prolonged the situation by aggressively and proactively protecting him.

I do have hope, but no faith. The AC is never going to act on these issues wholesale. Incidentally, this is all the more sad since most of the MML situation may have never occured or would at least have ended much sooner and quieter, if not for his protection by several of the parties in this case, who, most ironically, were also the ones who did more than anyone else to promote WR on Wikipedia. Finally, and after far too long, Mantanmoreland has been community banned after being caught sockpuppeting again. But will an ArbCom who refused to acknowledge the evidence in the other case now acknowledge the evidence against those who prolonged this violation of practically all Wikipedia rules? Will they acknowledge all the other evidence that demonstrates long-running and deep-seated problems surrounding the behaviour of these people? They will not, I'm afraid. The AC is going to turn this into another waste of time for those who are fighting for Wikipedia's integrity. They might as well ban Cla68 (nevermind that he contributed more featured content than they all combined did) and of course dismiss the notion that starting an RfAr was the most decisive proof, all we ever really needed, to see that those people are never going to reform their approach. They will keep up their all-out-character-assassinations, they will keep up their poisonous language, they will keep up canvassing, tag-team revert-warring, defending each other and harassing, baiting and, if at all possible, blocking anyone who criticises them. Because ArbCom is not going to do squat about it. They will ignore the evidence. I for one am not getting my hopes up (or rather, I'm bracing for yet another big disappointment). If the ArbCom shows balls and spine for the first time ever, I'll be happy, but it would be a great great surprise. dorftrottel (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I mostly agree with Dorf. I will be surprized to see a proposed decision with deadmin's in it, I would be surprized to see a proposed decision that does not chastise cla68 and viridea for trying to do the right thing. I would love to see real action taken against folks who have seemingly become almost NOTHING but the fuel to keep the 'board of outerdarkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth' going. Is the arbcom serious about the project as an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view? or are they more concerned with protection of users who have been a part of the community for a long time? The arbcom has a chance here to provide a real benefit to the encyclopedia and it's community of editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. If there was consensus on the nature of the problem, then the community has all the powers it needs to resolve that problem. The Arbitration Committee is involved, usually, when there is considerable disagreement on the nature of the problem or the best solution. This is why we now have an arbitration case--several parties are seeing problems and blaming one another, so consensus on the best solution has not arisen (this applies to the JzG case as much as to the Cla68 case). The Committee has to look at what is happening, make some basic determinations on what's gone wrong, and propose whatever solutions its members feel are in the best interests of Wikipedia. We can't predict what the best solution for the problem will be because if we agreed on that then we would already have carried it out. That's why the Committee exists. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't have strong opinions on the need for remedies when this began. After reading the evidence, now I do. Based on my observations of previous arbcom hearings, I don't expect that the remedies will match my view of the evidence. I absoultely agree that if it were totally clear cut the community might have been able to work it out. However, with editors only telling half the story (or less) when these issues are brought up at the vairous other places for resultion/input (rfc's, admin noticeboards, etc) and when those issues are followed by 'ban the wr trolls!' and 'I'm being harrassed by the evil off-site message board's stooges' and similar it is beyond the communities ability to deal with. I actually think a bit of prediction is useful, it helps folks prepare for what might be coming (both observers and committee members). I recall in the manatanmoreland hearing, folks on the committee being very surprized at the overwhelmingly negative response to the initial proposed decision. A bit of commentary on what the proposed might include could help focus on what seems important. Obviously, there is more to it. We don't see all the privately submitted stuff, of which there is likely more than we expect (with lar's comments on folks who shy away from confrontation with the parties). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you may be confusing an obstinate refusal to accept consensus with no consensus. The ArbCom's job is to deal with the former rather than the latter. dorftrottel (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify: there is no consensus within the community on what you said in your comment at 1914 this evening you have "hope, but no faith" that the arbitration committee will agree with: that the actions of certain parties inappropriately "prolonged [a] violation of practically all Wikipedia rules", and that they acknowledge your claim, which is echoed by many other contributors to this arbitration case, that there is a core of editors who have engaged in "all-out-character assassinations...poisonous language...canvassing, tag-team revert-warring, defending each other and harassing, baiting and, if at all possible, blocking anyone who criticises them." I do not believe that there is consensus within the community to this effect. I will not press the issue. I don't know whether or not the arbitration committee will agree with you, but whatever the decision is I will accept it.
On your substantive point, the remit of the arbitration committee is to resolve primarily interpersonal disputes. There are procedures for dealing with individuals who obstinately refuse to accept consensus: in short, they quickly become history if they persist. There are claims in this case that involve rather more serious charges. You have stated them yourself. The community obviously doesn't agree because they're not clamoring for the banning of these editors and the removal of these sysop bits. The ball is in arbcom#s court. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I think you might find that the comments of this individual in a prior case request are interesting reading. I don't recall how that one came out, it was a while ago. But it shows that this matter has been around a while. Perhaps conventional solutions aren't necessarily always the only alternative. I note that ArbCom has lately been endorsing the notion that unconventional solutions are to be sought when all else fails. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be coy about it. That was me. Disputes often arise from a perception that one party or another is defending a matter overzealously. I took the dispute to the arbitration committee. This is how we do things here. I didn't demand that the arbitration committee agree with either party, nor did I have a clear idea who was in the right. The case was rejected [158]. Please note my response of 11 September, and El C's response to that. Wikipedia:Assume good faith (misnamed AGF by those who mistakenly believe that letters mean as much as words) worked very well in this case. It's a long way from my expression of concern at a dispute between parties, all of whom I respected, to these extremely distressing and,. honestly, obviously false allegations based (really, let's be honest) Slim Virgin's absolutely correct behavior in dealing with WordBomb, a stupid and nasty paid troll. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of SV, why do we excuse her other excesses because she was right in her excessive newbie biting of wordbomb? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously false allegations" like that Mantanmoreland was engaging in abusive sockpuppetry? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, when you talk about assuming good faith and then make the final comment, it betrays the complete lack of substance in your position. If you are assuming bad faith on one side, please have the integrity to acknowledge that you're doing this and not rely on ridiculous appeals to principles that you don't support. Mackan79 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the era of anything-goes abuse of Judd Bagley is over. Maybe not. In any case I'd say in his defense that I prefer his puckish mischief to the preening, grandiose, self-pitying nonsense of that transparent fraud Mantanmoreland – the organized and wholly unjustified protection of whom is at the root of this case.--G-Dett (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Looking at the situations with SandyGeorgia or Tim Vickers and many other things, I daresay the Mantanmoreland saga was 'merely' the most blown-up and now-most obvious of all the bad things, but there's a lot more. At the base of this case is an underlying behavioral issue perhaps best summarised here and, humorously (which is the best approach most of the time), here. dorftrottel (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to everyone in this thread, I'm not sure we're going in a useful direction. I'd be interested in more analysis of my ideas or, if those don't make the grade, further suggestions of creative ways to cut the Gordian knot. I see it as a Gordian knot because I honestly don't think any of the parties deserves at this point to be banned, and if everyone's going to remain editing here, then some way has to be found to detoxify the atmosphere, and conventional sanctions seem unlikely to help. But reiterating our grievances seems a particularly poor way to do that too. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken (although it was fun while it lasted) I think you should turn these reflections into concrete remedies and see who supports or opposes them and why. Your point really is that conventional remedies either won't work for lack of teeth (ok, everyone, be nice... right. What block of any of the parties here on that basis would survive 30 minutes at AN/I?), or go too far and aren't likely to be adopted anyway (can you see ArbCom banning all parties? Desysopping all parties?... didn't think so), and something different is needed. So put it out there. Me, I'd limit the tandem reversion and limit the use of codeword memes, and make it enforceable in a non debateable (and thus non overturnable) way. But that's pretty obviously why I never stood for ArbCom, and likely never will. (although lately I've been wondering...) ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing recent comments above, I have little to add to my previous comments. Slim Virgin works in controversial areas but, taking into account the fact that she'll tend to gain enemies simply because she does so, overall I find her behavior acceptable. On the other hand, I find the very, very long-time persecution of Slim Virgin utterly distasteful both on the spurious grounds cited by those who engage in it or defend it (of which I gave one of the more obvious examples) and because of the manner in which the hounding has been conducted, whether on-site or off-site. I've no idea whether the committee is likely to see it my way, but since it's my considered opinion it would be dishonest to deny it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it a tiny bit weird to speak of her being prosecuted in an RfAr which ~~she started~~ a wikifriend of her's started? Or let me guess, that's justified self-defense, right? dorftrottel (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have misread my comment. I do not refer to this arbitration case, which I expect to substantially vindicate SlimVirgin, but to the persecution of SlimVirgin, which has been substantial and longrunning and is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, by the appearance of legitimising that persecution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history's a bit tangled, what with two cases being merged and all, but I don't think Slim was the one who started either of the cases that turned into this one. FeloniousMonk started a case against Cla68, while Viridae started one against JzG (or was that vice versa?), and various others got added as parties too, including Slim, who was one of the first to insert comments which included urging that the ArbCom accept the case. So she's a supporter of bringing the case, but doesn't seem to be the originator of it. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, because it gets pretty hard to figure out who did what when just from looking at the case page. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, struck and amended accordingly. dorftrottel (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think SlimVirgin or FeloniousMonk disagree on the question of whether there is a strong case against Cla68. Evidence has also been presented on FeloniousMonk's and SlimVirgin's behavior; whether that is germaine to the immediate case is a question that needs to be answered by the Committee (they decide the scope). Whether Cla68's conduct was acceptable in all of the circumstances pertaining is also a question that must be determined by the Committee. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major difference between banning all parties and merely desysopping them. The most significant of the problems brought forward in the evidence arise from administrative actions, or from editing action backed by the explicit or implied threat of administrative actions. None of the work or contention of the parties carried out purely as editors is really so outrageous that it would justify banning. Nor have such actions in themselves really hurt our ability to retain editors. The administrative role, either by itself or combined with the editing--that's something else indeed. Desysopping them, and asking them to stand for re-confirmation (or possibly a requirement that they stand for re-confirmation, with the understanding they will lose the bit if they do not get it--the same effect, but worded less aggressively) should deal with the worst pat of the actual problem. The only difficulty, of course, is the foreseeable reconfirmation requests and the "discussion" they will evoke. But it should make the attitude of the general community quite apparent. I think that was Alanyst's original point. DGG (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you read my intent correctly. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and while I can see how losing the sysop bit can be a bit of a blow to one's dignity, I think it could help the parties re-focus on the editing side of Wikipedia. I have some further thoughts on this that I will present as concrete proposals, as Lar has thoughtfully suggested I do. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admin bits are incidental, thuggery is not. The outcome of this case shouldn't hinge on whether this or that person is to be desysopped, but over what we are to about the extreme and unacceptable attacks, on and off the wiki, on SlimVirgin. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is twofold. First, if SlimVirgin is being attacked, that does not give her a licence to do things that are not within our norms, especially things that are directed at upstanding contributors here rather than at her attackers. Second, if person X is being attacked by organization Y, the proper course of action is not to go after innocent bystander Z. Cla68 is an innocent bystander here, who just happens to be upstanding enough of a wikicitizen to be willing to bring things to the community's attention. If this case comes out as the only remedy being some sort of remedy against Cla68, we will have shot the messenger rather than dealt with the problem. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed SlimVirgin has done anything unacceptable, that problem should be handled. Tu quoque is no defense. However, to describe Cla68 as an "innocent bystander" is to ignore his persistent promotion of attacks on Wikipedians by trolls. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've asserted this, without proof, several times now. Do you plan to introduce something in evidence to show this, or just keep asserting it over and over in the hope that if you repeat it enough times it will stick? I've introduced evidence that shows that Cla68's JzG RfC was widely regarded as correct, which refutes a good part of your theorem right there. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, it's enough. Please consider not posting to these pages anymore unless you have something useful to add, preferably backed up by diffs. dorftrottel (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disapprove of enabling trolls.

I would think that that ends the need for this conversation. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Musing by GRBerry~~
I wonder if a remedy forbidding certain parties and commentators from mentioning or referring to Wikipedia Review in discussion on Wikipedia would be helpful. Not the "BADSITES" sort of issue, but saying that editors X, Y, and Z have proven that they personally are incapable of engaging in such discussion responsibly, and hence are forbidden from doing so - i.e. a user specific topic ban. I'm not sure that it would work any better than imposing a civility parole, but it is an idea that has struck me repeatedly while reviewing this case. GRBerry 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional and unrelated note. JzG has not contributed or logged an administrative action between 18 May and this note. That date was before his RFAR was accepted, opened, and merged with the original case here. GRBerry 21:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Remarks by uninvolved User:bwrs~~
~~Here are the two most serious complaints that I see in this case:~~
The gravest offenses being complained of are the alleged threat(s) to violate the privacy of users, and the alleged stalking, and

the second most serious is the alleged abuse of administrative tools.
In regard to the second (alleged abuse of admin. tools), I disagree with FM's use of the tools, but it is the first (alleged threats) that I wish to comment on at length. The key factual question is: were the communication(s) in question truly a threat, or was it merely a warning? Did any party to the case actually attempt or intend to "out" users to the press (or to the public)?
If there was an attempt to "out" a user, then I would back an indefinite (permanent) community ban; if there was a threat backed by intent, then I would back a long-term community ban. If, however, it was a warning that somebody else was about to "out" the user then the governing principle should be that "under certain circumstances, a user may have good reason to warn another editor that the editor's conduct is putting himself or herself at risk (for example, that he or she is inadvertently revealing personal identifying information or is creating a legal risk). At times, such a communication may be in the best interest of the recipient...."^[1]
So in conclusion I urge the committee to make a finding of fact regarding whether Cla68 or any other party to this case actually provided or attempted to provide (or intended to provide) journalists with information on the identity of users, or whether he was merely warning them. If it was merely a warning, then I would not support any block or ban.
Bwrs (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
________________________________

~~^ See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Raising good-faith concerns. But see the concluding sentence of the paragraph (not quoted here).~~

On Wikipedia Review, User:Moulton said in a very lengthy post about the Rosalind Picard article, "In the meantime, I had sent Brian Bergstein a thank you message for his phone call to me, and left him an open invitation to look further into the story, should he find it of newsworthy value. I have no idea if Brian will look into it further, or decide whether it rises to reportable news by AP standards." (Bergstein is an AP reporter.) Cla68's comment was later on in that thread and needs to be understood in that context - he was just commenting on what Moulton had said, nothing more, nothing less. --B (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton's comment clearly outlined his failure to get journalists interested in the underlying issues. There was no mention, in Moulton's comments, of "outing" anyone...after all, it's pretty doubtful that a reputable journalist like Bergstein would choose to out people based on speculative claims. Moulton documents a failure to get journalists interested. Cla, on the other hand, said "I wonder if OrangeMarlin, Jim62sch, and their friends are aware how close they are to having their real names in the press". Per Moulton's statement, the answer would be "not very close". Taken in the context of the thread, Cla's statement is a distinct threat. Adding (for context) the fact that Cla has made statements to the press before attacking other Wikipedians, and you have a very clear threat. Coupled with the context of wanting people to alter their actions, and you have the use of threats to coerce other editors, a bannable offense. Guettarda (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I haven't been keeping up with everything, Cla68 has made statements to the press in the past? ^{[citation needed]}? I agree that would change things if true. --B (talk) 03:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it? Speaking to the press is not a sin - on-Wiki methods should always be preferred to deal with conflict, but I can see some argument that such avenues were not open to Cla68. Orderinchaos 05:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a press conference is not a legitimate step in the dispute resolution process. Nobody can stop anyone from going to the press, but if you are going to use the press as a tool in a Wikipedia conflict, you don't need to be editing Wikipedia. That's no different than making a legal threat or engaging in any other harassment. My assumption here all along has been that Cla68 was merely commenting on Moulton's statement. If that's demonstrably not true, that's important information to have. --B (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is genuine disagreement about Cla68's intent. I don't find the arguement by Guettarda (and others) compelling, but I can see where someone might. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just that he was commenting on Moulton's statement; my assumption at least has been that someone in the press most likely contacted Cla68 and told him about a pending story, and that this was probably a second basis for Cla68's comment. This isn't based on any communication with Cla68, but simply based on what he said on WR, and a much more realistic conception of whether Cla68 somehow gets stories written, or whether a reporter working on a story might come to Cla68 with information. Re Guettarda, no, the context does not somehow turn a non-threat into a threat, or anything that is somehow "bannable." If your idea is that Cla68 was somehow trying to indicate that he was going to reveal personal identities to the press, please give some greater indication of this. What's missing currently is mostly 1. any statement from him having threatened to do so, 2. any history of him having done so, and 3. any plausible explanation for why he would do so here based on such limited invovlement with that whole dispute. Mackan79 (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No press representative has discussed with me about doing a story on anyone in the anti-ID group. My comments in that WR thread were strictly in reference to Moulton's comments about press attention. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify the context of this "press attention" thing? I'm not so much baffled about why the press would be that interested in the idea of Wikipedia being an inhospitable environment for religious POV pushing, as wondering how that attention might in any way reflect negatively on us. It sounds a bit far-fetched to me. The press is not widely known for its sympathetic treatment of creationist nitwits. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very bad mischaracterization. Moulton's alleged press story was about how the Rosalind Picard article was nothing but a rebuttal of intelligent design, not about POV pushing or anything else. Moulton, from what I have read on WR, is not someone that I or other "creationist nitwits" as you so politely call us would likely care to associate with - he is not a Christian, not an IDer, and not someone with whom I agree about anything other than the scope of our biographies. Too often, biographies of anyone who is or was pro-ID are turned into rebuttals of ID. This isn't a matter of POV pushing - it's a matter of making biographies of living people about living people. Picard is a respected engineer and signing that petition was a minor part of her life. It should be a minor part of the article. That's all Moulton or anyone else ever argued. This is not about trying to change Wikipedia's belief that creationism is a small minority view or an attempt to change the policy that it is not to be given "equal time" or any such thing. Every regular Wikipedian (as opposed to disruptive SPAs) acknowledges that policy. This is only about libel in BLPs. The fact that someone is a creationist doesn't mean that it's ok to put words into their mouth (Bob is a creationist, and therefore Bob probably holds views xyz that are stupid) nor is it ok to make the entire article into a rebuttal of ID. Libel in our biographies is a legitimate issue, is something that needs to be fixed, and is something that conceivably Moulton could believe that the press might care about. This has nothing to do with the ID article itself, any non-biographical article, or the policy that creationism is a small minority view. It has everything to do with presenting honest, reliably sourced biographies of living persons. --B (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment could well be a mischaracterization--I haven't read the Rosalind Picard article and I've no idea how it could become "a refutation of Intelligent Design". Do you have a particular revision in mind? If there were BLP problems, the article could easily be stubbed down, no problem. I've done it myself a few times. I'm reading the article now, and reading the talk page, and not really seeing evidence of any major squabbles over content--just a little debate (which seems to be extraordinarily polite) over wording. How did this become a matter for the Wikipedia Review trolls (well, not difficult to explain) and more significantly, how did this end up as something we need to get worried about in a big way? Is the sky falling in? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it is now is very well-written. There was a pretty good rewrite after it got mention on ANI around May 5. This revision sat for about 4 months. The article was very short and the two sentences about ID comprised a quarter of the narrative text and 5 of the 14 citations in the article. This version is more problematic - it contained another two sentences from some guy who took issue with people with no evolutionary biology training that make statements about evolution - he didn't mention Picard by name and his statement had no business being in a biography of Picard any more than it would belong in the biography of George W Bush. This was the most problematic version - it was the state of the article when Moulton first came to it. It contained NOTHING but criticism on the ID petition and was wholly inappropriate for a biographical article. That Wikipedia was (and is) in the business of putting out biographies like that oldest revision is absolutely untenable and one more reason that we need better versioning and reviewed editions. That version of the article should never in a billion years have been published on something calling itself an encyclopedia and was nothing but an attack job. --B (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That version you list first doesn't seem at all bad to me. What exactly was the problem with it? The later version is a bit OTT and gives undue prominence to a comment by some guy on a website. I deal with this kind of stuff daily. Why is this article something to put into a newspaper? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it is - Moulton said that he thought it was. Cla68 commented on Moulton's comment. We're now talking Cla68's belief about Moulton's belief that this was newsworthy. Oftentimes, in life, we all have a tendency to assume that everyone is as passionate about the things we are passionate about. That means that I have to listen to fish stories at work all day from the avid fishermen on either side of me. Moulton incorrectly assumed that this was news to anyone outside of Wikipedia. The only issue as far as I am concerned is that we need to be more vigilant about making sure that BLPs are really biographies and not puff pieces or attack pieces and we need to have at least bios reviewed by a second pair of eyes, preferably unbiased ones who don't normally edit related articles, before they go live. It isn't just a religion thing - football articles also have the tendency to either be fanboy "our quarterback is the greatest thing since sliced bread and carried the team on his shoulders while simultaneously ending world hunger" puff pieces or they are attack jobs that talk about nothing but how the receiver dropped a pass in a critical game that kept the team from covering the spread. All bios need to be meticulously reviewed. That's my only point. But Moulton believed it was something pressworthy, Cla68 commented on Moulton's belief, and now we are here. --B (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I haven't read this thread and I've no idea how "we are here," or why any of this could be talkpage-worthy but I think WP:DNFT might somehow be relevant. Cool Hand Luke 07:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comments:~~
I agree with Bwrs's comments on his point number 1. A specific finding of intent/action of outing would seem to be neccessary for any remedies involving Cla68. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Gordian knot~~
I do not presume to address the entire scope of the case with this idea, but hope it might cut through the knot (or perhaps one of the knots) at the center of it. This knot is the dispute and mistrust between Cla68 and SlimVirgin.
I observe that both of them make valued contributions to the encyclopedia and losing their mainspace work would be painful in some respects. But their personal dispute keeps fanning the flames of related disputes, and the net effect on Wikipedia has become detrimental.
With this in mind, my proposal, starting with a hockey metaphor: Put the fighters in the penalty box. Unlike hockey, though, the fighters will have to jointly determine when they get released.
The specifics: Cla68 and SlimVirgin are both to be indefinitely blocked (not banned) from Wikipedia until the two of them work out an agreement that governs their Wikipedia-related behavior (including on-wiki, WR, mailing lists, etc.) going forward. They can work out this agreement privately or in any forum of their choosing, but must jointly stipulate to the agreement and receive the Committee's approval of the agreement in order to be unblocked. Neither can be unblocked in any other way. The final terms of the agreement, ratified by the Committee, are to be published on-wiki in an appropriate location so that other editors are aware of their self-imposed restrictions. Violations of their agreement are to be handled by the arbitration enforcement process.
If either editor is found to be evading their block, the Committee will propose a ban of that editor and ask for the community's ratification of the ban, and the other editor will immediately be unblocked. If Cla68 and SlimVirgin cannot come to an agreement, they both remain indefinitely blocked, no matter how much time has passed, no matter which of them is being reasonable and which one is not. If one of them announces their intention to leave the project permanently, the other may appeal to the Committee for an unblock, and the Committee will decide whether to grant it.
The terms of their agreement are for them to determine, subject to the Committee's approval, so if they decide that Cla68 can only post to talk pages in iambic pentameter and SlimVirgin has to use the word "forsooth" in her signature, they are bound by it.
This proposal intentionally does not try to assign individual fault and does not purport to be "fair" to either party. It may very well be unfair for one or the other to be penalized this way, but it's the best way I can think of to achieve a fair resolution of their personal dispute while addressing the problem of further disruption.
Proposed by alanyst ^/talk/ 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
Proposed. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is clear from the evidence that the dispute goes beyond a simple disagreement between two people. I really doubt that this would solve anything. Sorry. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose also. It's much more than a one-on-one dispute; it's a whole massive complex of disputes involving lots of people, lots of issues, and a widespread "us vs. them", "good guys vs. bad guys" mindset. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, introductory sentence demonstrates limited understanding of the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the three remarks above: Feedback appreciated. I know it's a complex of disputes; this aims directly at only one part and I don't mean it to be exclusive of other remedies. Did I give that impression? I think if some part of the dynamic is altered, it might have a cascading effect on the other areas of the case, and if Cla68 and SlimVirgin can both stipulate something along the lines of "I will not do X anymore", maybe it will establish a pattern for others to follow. alanyst ^/talk/ 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alanyst: Full marks for trying to cut the Gordian Knot here... but saying that it's "Cla68 vs. SlimVirgin" that is the nexus is not quite correct. Cla68 is just the brave but hapless fellow willing to do the spadework of gathering all the evidence, knowing that he will forever bear the brunt of animus from a certain faction, but willing to pay that cost for the good of the project. We should not punish whistleblowers such as him. The nexus here, I am (with considerable regret) increasingly coming to believe, is SlimVirgin. Valuable contributor. Tireless worker. Here since the early days. Unfairly singled out for persecution at WR and elsewhere. Victimised and maligned unjustly. But also a polarizing influence, who has a habit of winning disputes not on the strength of her argument, but on the strength of her allies and on the strength of her attacks on others. As the evidence clearly shows. Tying Cla68 into that knot makes things more tangled, it does not cut through to the heart of the issue. We need to rid the project of corrosive influences, of power based on behind the scenes maneuvering, of false allegations hurled in anger, of misuse of admin authority to win content disputes, of tag team serial reverting, in short, of uncollegial behaviour. Regardless of how much of a VestedContributor SlimVirgin is.++Lar: t/c 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not correct at all. Cla68 has done a small number of things that he should feel somewhat mildly repentant about. So probably have we all. SlimVirgin is... precisely as Lar says immediately above. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 13:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch#Raising good-faith concerns. But see the concluding sentence of the paragraph (not quoted here).

[1]