List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• ChrisO ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Elonka ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Julia1987 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Southkept ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Statement by ChrisO

I wish to appeal a page ban applied by Elonka after I removed an obvious copyright, BLP and NPOV violation from an article. The background is as follows:

• Muhammad al-Durrah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) concerns a controversy that is currently the subject of libel litigation in France as well as an off-wiki campaign that accuses several individuals of criminal and professional misconduct. Personal abuse like this and death threats have been directed against some of those involved. I have monitored the article for BLP reasons since April 2007. [1]

• A number of previously uninvolved editors have recently been editing the article. Some of the editing and talk page contributions have been very problematic. The article was fully protected for a time and two new editors, Julia1987 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Tundrabuggy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), have been the subject of action by Moreschi [2] and MZMcBride [3] respectively.

• On 10 June, Elonka stepped in to mediate, impose editing restrictions and lift protection. [4] I fully accept that I overstepped the restrictions on a couple of occasions through sheer frustration, as noted by Elonka. [5], [6], [7].

• On 13 June, Julia1987 posted unsourced allegations on the article talk page that an individual mentioned in the article was a drug dealer who had been attacked by a drug gang. [8] WP:BLP requires the removal of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" from talk pages and articles. I therefore redacted them and asked Julia1987 not to post unsourced allegations in future. [9]

• On 14 June, Julia1987 made a series of edits in which she deleted some sourced material and added essentially the same allegations, this time sourced to this pirate web video, undated, unsourced, translated by an unknown individual, on a video sharing website. Julia1987's edits stated the allegations as proven facts. [10]

• WP:BLP requires that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that ... relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability". WP:COPY requires that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". Elonka's own restrictions state that "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." [11]

• I therefore removed Julia1987's problematic additions and restored the deleted material. [12] In hindsight my edit summary was poorly written and did not make sufficiently clear that the removed material was a BLP and copyright violation. As WP:BLP mandates that "The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals" (by extension the same would apply to a 0RR regime), I did not consider this to be a revert. I did not revert to a previous version, as I retained Julia1987's and another editor's non-problematic additions. (See User talk:Elonka#Sequence of edits).

• I was shocked and surprised to find on 15 June that Elonka had banned me for one week from the article's talk page and thirty days from the article itself. [13] Elonka has since restricted Julia1987 for deleting sourced content in the same series of edits as the BLP/copyright violation [14].

• I have since unsuccessfully sought to resolve this with Elonka on her talk page. Elonka has argued that my edit was an impermissible reversion and constituted "edit-warring", but has not acknowledged any of the NPOV, BLP or copyright issues that I have raised. [15] Wikipedia's BLP and copyright rules cannot be overridden by an individual admin's restrictions, and an admin-imposed 0RR cannot supersede the long-standing rule that the removal of BLP violations is not counted towards reversions. Elonka's action has the unfortunate effect of penalising a good-faith effort to remove material that indisputably violates BLP, COPY and NPOV. This risks sending a message to editors that BLP doesn't matter and attempts to uphold it will be penalised.

I would therefore be grateful for outside views on this matter. Please note that I fully support Elonka's mediation efforts; this unfortunate misunderstanding should not be taken as criticism of the rest of her work on the article. -- ChrisO ( talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Elonka's comment below, I couldn't source Julia1987's allegations to anything other than the pirate video, an unusable source which had to be removed. BLP requires us to reliably source statements about living people ("Be very firm about the use of high quality references"). It wasn't possible to remove the unusable source while leaving in place an unsupported, potentially libelous claim - that would have been a BLP violation in my part. The only recourse was to remove the claim and the unusable source. I'm also not sitting this out because of the unresolved BLP issue and the chilling effect Elonka's action is likely to have on any future efforts to ensure that BLP is followed. We need a clear statement on whether or not editing restrictions can override BLP and copyright enforcement. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion over which edit prompted the page-ban. Elonka page-banned me for making this edit. The BLP violation I removed was this bit (the bolded text is that which was added by User:Julia1987, unbolded article text is previously existing material which I didn't remove)):

Muhammad's father claim he was severely wounded in the same incident and was treated in hospital in Jordan for multiple bullet wounds.<ref name="Tierney">Tierney, Michael. ''Glasgow Herald'', August 23, 2003</ref> However, scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes. <ref> Ch. 10, April 29, 2008 [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x594x0_jamal-aldurrah-scars-from-the-past_news]</ref>"

This makes the father out to be a liar, it states a purely anecdotal claim made by an interviewee in the report as fact, no other reliable source that I know of has made that claim, it's sourced to a Youtube-style video hosting site (ergo, a probable copyvio), and the reliability of the source was essentially unknowable since at the time I knew of no original copy of the video. The source was unusable and the information in it uncorroborated. It would be appreciated if arbitrators could address whether this is a BLP and probable copyright violation and if so, whether removing it was reasonable. -- ChrisO ( talk) 10:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Eternalsleeper

I've been watching these discussions from afar, as I'm way too busy with RL to contribute to Wikipedia on a solid base. Elonka has been reasonable and helpful in moving the page forward, though it would be even more helpful if people stopped making sarcastic and pejorative comments on the talk page, directly and indirectly calling each other's position into ideological questioning. I haven't been following up on the page with enough persistence to make any further comment but I felt a vote of confidence in Elonka's efforts was due. Eternalsleeper ( talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

Personally I think that ChrisO is wasting his time here, but this appeal might actually benefit from an ArbCom review, as a few editors have been sharply critical of the conditions for editing that I placed on this article. So I wouldn't mind hearing from ArbCom as to whether or not I have been working in accordance with the Discretionary Sanctions that they envisioned in January. To describe the situation in a nutshell: ChrisO, an admin who was participating as an involved editor, was edit-warring at the Muhammad al-Durrah article, which is within the scope of the Palestine-Israel articles ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and had been in a state of dispute for quite awhile. I, as an uninvolved admin (and member of the ArbCom-appointed Working Group on ethnic and cultural edit wars), decided to take a look at the situation, and chose to place a civility and 0RR (no revert) restriction on the article. Most editors complied, but ChrisO kept reverting. Since he's an admin, I tried to give him lots of leeway, but it's obvious that he felt that the restrictions were for other people, and not for him, and he kept on with warring and incivility, such as referring to loony conspiracy theories. So I gave him a steadily increasing set of cautions. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] After his second revert, [23] [24] I told him clearly that if he did one more, he risked being put on tighter restrictions. [25] The next day, he reverted again, [26] with a misleading edit summary of "blatant POV pushing" (his edit summary didn't describe it as a revert, but it was clear that he had cleanly wiped out 8 intervening edits, back to his own last version. [27]) I then put him on (what I felt was) a mild ban of avoiding the talkpage for one week, and avoiding edits to the article for one month. [28] He immediately started wikilawyering with multiple messages to my talkpage about why he was allowed to revert, [29] and then he came up with this after-the-fact "BLP" angle, [30] saying that it excuses his total revert. I disagree. The case is pretty simple as far as I'm concerned, and has nothing to do with BLP. ChrisO was edit-warring, he was told to stop, he didn't, I put a brief page ban on him.

I would also like to point out that when I first learned of the situation, the article was already protected, the talkpage was in the middle of a severe dispute, and ChrisO was begging for an uninvolved administrator to help out. When I offered my assistance, he said it would be appreciated. [31] I am proud to say that since I placed my conditions on the article on June 10, the article has become much more stable, with some very constructive conversations going on at the talkpage. And all of this was accomplished with no blocks and no page protection. Instead, three editors (two new editors, and ChrisO) were placed on temporary bans (see our admin log), and everyone else is back to work. I acted in the best interest of the project, and got rapid control of a situation that was in near chaos, with only very minor course corrections on my part. I wish that ChrisO could recognize that my system works. That he is continuing to escalate and is now trying to spin this as a BLP issue, is disappointing. There were many ways that he could have edited the article to remove anything that he found problematic, by changing the text rather than just reverting. It is also disappointing that he's going to the trouble of filing what will probably be a lengthy appeal, which will probably take weeks to resolve. I had pointed out to him that an easier route would be to simply avoid the talkpage for the rest of the week (until June 22), and then if he resumed participation in a civil and constructive manner, that I would consider lifting the article editing ban early, rather than requiring that he sit out the full 30 days. I've already done this with one of the other editors, Tundrabuggy ( talk · contribs), who had been banned for 90 days. We instructed him to work on other articles for awhile, and he did, so we lifted his talkpage ban to allow him to resume discussions. But evidently ChrisO would rather stir things up here at ArbCom for a few weeks, rather than just waiting until the weekend to participate at talk, so here we are. -- El on ka 23:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth

Just a brief comment here. Elonka's system is interesting, and is in fact similar to what I have advocated elsewhere. I'm glad to see that some of these (rather obvious) ideas are at least being put into practice. I am concerned though that sometimes it can end up looking like some individuals (in this case Elonka) are the gatekeepers for the article. To avoid this, I suggest a system of rotation, whereby the uninvolved admins move on to different areas and different articles every few months. This will ensure things do not go stale, that grudges do not fester and build up, and that the admins involved get a fresh look on different articles rather than deal with the same things over and over again (ie. avoid burn out). This would also address the perennial question of whether admins are truly uninvolved and committed. If the admins in question are uninvolved, then they will not mind moving on a different article every few months. Possibly all this has been suggested elsewhere. If not, please do pass it on to whatever board is considering these things this month. :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 23:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Canadian Monkey

Elonka has done a commendable job of stepping into a controversial article and, through the imposition of strict editing conditions, eliminated edit warring while allowing for continuous improvement of the article. As she notes, ChrisO was given plenty of warning about his behavior, and much more leeway was given to him (presumably because of his status as an admin) than to other editors, who were subjected to similar sanctions for behavior that was, in my opinion, much less disruptive than ChrisO’s. He has clearly edit warred on the page, and reverted on multiple occasions, despite being notified of both the 0RR restrictions and the general ArbCom decision related to I-P articles.

The "BLP" issue is a Red herring. As Elonka notes, ChrisO came up with the "BLP" angle [32] after the fact, and used it as an excuse for a revert that encompassed much more than any potential BLP issues. I’d like to highlight he fact that this is apparently a common modus operandi with ChrisO. On May 23rd, he was reported for a 3RR violation by an uninvolved editor on the same article (prior to the recent restrictions and Elonka’s involvement). He did not claim he was reverting BLP issues in any of his 5 reverts, 3 of which consisted of removing "Category:Violence in media", which is clearly pure edit warring over a content issue that has nothing to do with BLP. But once the 3RR report was filed, he suddenly came up with the "BLP" angle, to excuse his behavior ex post facto, and without pointing to any actual BLP issues that his reverts were aimed at.

His behavior on this article has been problematic from the get go. He has abused his admin privileges by posting warning notifications on the Talk pages of all those who opposed him, even though he was an involved admin. This behavior was found problematic by several uninvolved admins ( [33], [34], [35]) and he was told it was improper (though not sanctioned for it).

Unable to get consensus for his views on the Talk page of the article, he has engaged in egregious forum shopping, seeking to get his opponents banned or otherwise sanctioned and his own actions vindicated, on no fewer than 6 different venues: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. In fact, this most recent appeal follows on the heels of yet another appeal, his 7th (!!) this time here, after he had been told by the responding admin that “I would tread on the cautious side and say that if it's not obvious, then note it to someone else and let others do it, if 0RR applies to one of the editors involved.”

Given this extremely disruptive behavior, the length of time it has been going on, and the fact that similar behavior has been exhibited on other articles as well (see this, for example, where he has blocked an editor with whom he has an active content dispute) – I think that ChrisO got off extremely lightly (a 30 day ban from a single article), and that a more appropriate sanction would be a topic ban, from all I-P related articles, for a substantially longer time period.

Statement by Tarc

I find it rather hard to believe that, in the name of "mediation", one administrator can simply ignore policy and guidelines on NPOV and BLP and such. All edits and/or reverts are not created equal; if someone edits in violation of Wikipedia policy, to sanction someone else for addressing and removing such violations is a serious error in judgment. Mediating in this or any I-P related article is a thankless task that few if any have the time, patience, or willingness to undertake, and Elonka should be commended for taking a stab at a difficult task. But a bit more flexibility is called for here, and a hard "no reverts ever" is simply bad practice and completely unworkable.

Statement by JGGardiner

Like everyone else, I have to say that Elonka has done a wonderful job on the talk page. This was definitely a mop and bucket job. I can see how the editing conditions may seem a little draconian but the alternatives are worse.

When I first read Chris' statement I thought it did raise an interesting policy question: can editing restrictions override our policy restrictions. But, having looked everything over once again, I'm not sure that there is an actual policy difference here. Elonka's conditions seem to have exclusions that go far beyond just BLP: "If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot." Chris’ initial arguments seem to be that his edit was within the limits of Elonka’s restrictions. I think this is just a simple disagreement over the nature of Chris' particular edit.

Chris does acknowledge that he did not adequately construct his summary. If he did alter content beyond what was necessary to satisfy BLP concerns, it is easy to see why Elonka would have felt this was a reversion in violation of the editing conditions.

I am sympathetic to Chris’ feelings. I think that his general concern was having the article within policy. But I think that an admin in Elonka’s position would have had to have given Chris the benefit of the doubt to think that his edit was not a reversion. And at that point nobody on the talk page deserved such a benefit. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 12:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kelly

I fully endorse Elonka's actions - as someone who tried to make a foray into this article as an uninvolved party, I can testify that a firm hand is needed in handling this article. ChrisO's behavior has been problematic at times, as Elonka states (particularly his continual use of derogatory terms like "conspiracy theories" to describe other viewpoints; I believe this provokes other editors into inappropriate actions). This is not to say that the editing of his "opponents" has not also been problematic. But, as an experienced user, ChrisO should know better. Frankly, I'm impressed with how Elonka has handled the situation, and feel this approach should be used with other contentious articles. No ArbCom action needed here. Kelly ^hi! 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comment on ban of User:Tundrabuggy

Based on the user's comments below, I guess I would ask why Tundrabuggy's sanction was so much more severe than ChrisO's, for what seems to be a much lighter offense. If anything, Tundrabuggy should have gotten more leniency than ChrisO, given that Tundrabuggy is relatively new and ChrisO is, and has been, well aware of editing practices here. Kelly ^hi! 02:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

This seems to be about the imposition of a fairly routine discretionary sanction as provided for by the remedies in the case in question. If someone thinks an administrator erred in imposing such a sanction, their first avenue of redress is surely to seek input from other administrators, say by raising the matter at WP:AN/I and establishing a consensus that the application of the sanction should be reversed. I don't think the Arbitration Committee's input is needed unless the community is unable to resolve the matter, or clarification of the remedy is needed. Neither appears to be the case here. The Committee will waste a lot of time if they're to agree to provide "first instance" review of every discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator. I think other avenues of redress should be explored first. WjB scribe 15:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale

I think the problematic part is the fact that some people would read the original wording as only sanctioning AFTER warning, and not to start with blanket 0RR. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tundrabuggy

As a new user I started my account 28th May and the first article I edited was Muhammad al-Durrah. On June 2, the first external contribution to my talk page was the notification posted by ChrisO [42] without comment or discussion, and logged here: [43]. Until "tidied up" by Moreschi [44] later, the edit read: "notified of the case in relation to single-purpose account editing and promotion of personal views and original research"

Since then I've had a quick lesson in navigating, editing, rules and general "culture" of WP. I believed my half-dozen edits on the article were fair and neutral.

With the recent court decision, the release of the raw footage, and the latest articles, the equation has changed such that to continue to insist that that the opposing viewpoint is "fringe" or "conspiracy theory" becomes not only insulting, but rather a barrier to productive editing. Thus I tried to use neutral terms such as "was reported." This edit, however, became proof of being a 9/11-style thruthers [45], a sentiment endorsed by Moreschi, at the FTN with this highly POV edit [46]. The following day Moreschi goes to the Admin Noticeboard asking for an uninvolved admin to ban me and Julia1987. [47]

Later (ChrisO (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008)labels other editors: Canadian Monkey, Gilabrand, & Leifern "... to put it bluntly the SPAs and conspiracy theory advocates are not listening and are attempting to edit-war their view into the article. There is some very blatant soapboxing..."

Elonka stepped in and volunteered to mediate. She was accepted by all including ChrisO. As part of her ongoing mediation, she lifted protection on the article in exchange for some simple edit restrictions.

On June 10th I made the first single-word edit on the newly unprotected article -- "reported" -- and was surprised by a 90 day edit-ban on both article and talk page by previously uninvolved admin MZMcBride [48] Elonka asks for reconsideration: [49] and suggesting the ban is excessive, explains her rationale: [50]

I didn't challenge my ban until discovering ChrisO had received a much lighter restriction despite numerous warnings. Indeed, one might suppose he could have been expected, as an administrator and experienced editor, to have required fewer warnings, to have been held to a higher standard than I.

MZMcBride said of my ban of three months: "There truly isn't any need for this level of discussion for something so minor." [51]

If three months is acceptable for one party in a mediated dispute, how is a week and one month from the article so egregious? I believe that ChrisO abused his administrative powers to shoe-horn his POV into this article, and is now trying to break an agreed-upon mediation. He should accept the mediator's decision(s) in good spirit, and abide by them. To me the terms seem generous, and I think he could use his time to consider his own behavior in regard to this article, rather than trying to find fault in the behavior of others. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the issue of what ChrisO refers to as "ongoing litigation" in his statement. There is currently no ongoing litigation. Until and unless France 2 takes this to the Supreme Court, the issue has been decided. On the point of BLP, the latest court decision says of the main figure in this controversy (Charles Enderlin) that in his position "he inevitably and knowingly exposes himself to more careful scrutiny," and that he "admitted that the film, ... perhaps did not correspond to his commentary" "and the statements procured by the cameraman ... cannot be found truly credible neither in their presentation nor in their substance..." and in regard to the wounds of the father: "the lack of probative value of the photographs of Jamal AL DURA’s wounds." Thus the court has made their statement [52]and to reiterate the substance of the investigations that the court decision used to determine its verdict would not seem to me to be in violation of WP:BLP. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Julia1987

Prior to the ban ChrisO violated 3RR but escaped a block for technical reasons (report filed too late). He intimidated other editors using his admin "rank". His contribution page (prior to the ban) almost all his 500 edits are in one article. (or this request for arbitration plus related talk page - arguing about the ban) [53] -- Julia1987 ( talk) 18:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Messedrocker

I do not know the background, but let's assume for the sake for the argument that the editing sanctions were rightfully applied. If a removal is done per BLP, and it is recognized as such by the mediator and others, then it is a granted exception to the editorial ban. This has to be a very cut-and-dry case, though, where it is unambiguously in compliance with the ArbCom statement which goes along the lines of "BLP must be enforced at all costs". Otherwise, it is a breach of the ban and should be reverted.

I have no problem with banned ones requesting others to make edits, BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT the proxy editor must acknowledge that they have passed the request through their own judgment and they are willing to be responsible for their edits. That way, it is like proxy editing, but with the benefit of a human filter to prevent bad stuff from going through.

If the editing ban was wrongfully placed, then that's for the ArbCom to deal with.

MessedRocker ( talk) 02:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ned Scott

I half expected to see this request when I commented on the issue a little bit ago. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I will say that a blanket no-revert rule on an article, applied to all editors, isn't wise. Sometimes someone will make an edit with no redeeming qualities at all, negatively effecting the article, but without it being vandalism (or a BLP issue). My suggestion to Elonka was to make this restriction more.. restricted. Apply it to certain editors, certain texts, or something that wouldn't debilitate one of our most basic cleanup functions.

This may or may not be an issue yet, and this may or may not apply to ChrisO, but that's my two cents. -- Ned Scott 08:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I find myself agreeing with a number of people here:
  • Firstly, I agree with WJBscribe's comment. The original decision included this remedy, on appeals of discretionary sanctions, providing that appeals could be made to the sanctioning administrator, the relevant admin noticeboard (presently arbitration enforcement) or to the Committee. While the remedy didn't spell it out explicitly, the usual understanding is that one would start with the individual administrator, and then proceed "up" the chain of review from there, with review by the Committee being the last step, if others have not produced a resolution.
  • Secondly, I agree with the substance of what Elonka has said. From what I have seen this does not appear to be a BLP situation, but one of simple edit-warring. Reverting simply so your preferred version can stand (here, with an edit summary of "please let this stand for more than half an hour, OK?") is textbook edit-warring. Policy and practice grant much leeway to people to deal with BLP problems, but they have to have a sound basis for exercising such leeway, and they have to communicate that they think there's a BLP issue when they take action so that other editors understand what they're doing.
  • Thirdly, I agree with Carcharoth's view. Speaking generally, in these types of situations, the appearance of non-involvement is often as important as actual non-involvement. Perhaps, in the light of the increased number of discretionary sanctions remedies the Committee has passed over the last year, it would be worth setting aside a page somewhere to discuss discretionary sanction "best practice": what has worked, what hasn't worked, and so forth.

-- bainer ( talk) 09:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are several matters in this clarification: compatibility of 0RR with the case sanction (was Elonka within her rights?) and balancing of that sanction with BLP (if imposed, would 0RR preclude BLP reversion?). A question also exists, per ChrisO's statement, whether the specific item in question is in fact a BLP violation. Quick answers (detail below):

1. Yes, 0RR is an appropriate choice available to an uninvolved administrator, within the sanctions provided. Elonka has correctly understood both the purpose of the discretion given, and the extent of the tools made available for that purpose, and has applied them following appropriate prior warnings, and with care.
2. BLP (if a genuine case) would have a very high priority indeed and would override xRR.

   There is a caveat (because BLP is sometimes pushed or gamed for POV removal purposes). The caveat is, a user who claims "BLP-vio!" to do this, takes the chance they could be deemed edit warring unless the case is obvious. "Exceptional claims" (which include the claim "we have to ignore sanctions and restrictions, delete this now, and discuss later") should be accompanied by a good description of the reason that anyone can follow, and by willingness to discuss collaboratively after removal. Where it may not be clear to others, a good talk page description should usually be provided and ideally posted within moments of the edit and noted in the edit summary, so that the two will be seen together by other editors, and so it doesn't get mistaken for edit warring.

3. The revert by ChrisO does include material that was a clear violation of BLP (negative and unsourced/poorly sourced content). It also included reverting a number of edits that by themselves were not BLP violating, but taken together had a very one-sided negative effect that possibly did meet BLP criteria. (See below: "detail".) I'm willing to accept ChrisO's statement that despite describing it as "POV", this was what made him revert ( WP:AGF). A person reverting others' work should be very careful at the best of times not to do so unnecessarily nor to revert valid material ( WP:REVERT). This goes double when 0RR is in operation and also when a prior history of warnings for editing conduct has taken place. ChrisO had previously been warned about editing conduct on the article. He then posted a revert of multiple edits to the introduction, with an edit summary "blatant POV-pushing". Some of the reverted material should have been reverted (but on well-explained grounds), some should have been discussed but not reverted -- and a good explanation at that exact time of revert above all should have been given. Especially given the circumstances, he should have made exceptional efforts to be clear. ChrisO did not communicate and the result was a foregone conclusion.
4. Last, as bainer says (citing WJBScribe), this should probably not be brought here first. This dispute is probably not an RFAR matter (at this time). But now it's here, so be it.

I hope Elonka and ChrisO will talk and sort matters out, having seen first-hand the consequences of this communication issue. It's easy to learn from and both are good editors capable of insight. I note the sanction Elonka chose is reasonable and not excessive, and that Elonka carefully distinguishes talk page and article in her judgement of the handling. Bans and the like are preventative, and ChrisO sounds like he may have done mostly the right thing this case, but with poor and misleading communication, even though in prior instances he was breaching good practice and needed warning. I urge both to re-affirm that they are working together, and to collaborate better, which would make the sanction perhaps less necessary to uphold. But the bottom line is, I feel it's best to leave the final decision in Elonka's hands to decide (she's admining on this dispute area, and is doing it well). My own feeling is that if appropriate and if she feels ChrisO may have now learned from this about the importance of good communication in sensitive, already-restricted areas, she might feel like giving a second chance.

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

More detail.

More detail on the actual points raised: Compatibility of 0RR with the general sanction - The remedy is extremely broad (including "restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary...".) 0RR is a restriction that would apply only to existing or new editors on the article. The aim of an ultra-broad remedy is to get the article back on track however is necessary almost, and to deal with a range of behaviors that need strong action. If an uninvolved administrator feels 0RR/1RR may resolve problems (for example by compelling discussion of all points that become visibly disputed) then that may well be exactly whats needed. If not, we'll find out. Default = trust. If anyone feels that 0RR is a bad idea, it can be appealled (via Elonka as imposing administrator, WP:AE, or the Committee). But so far as I am aware, no claim is made that imposing 0RR per se is a bad admin judgement, or harms the article. Arbitration remedies like this get given only because nothing less seems powerful enough to work, and (provided it is fairly used) to support a strong hand which may actually be what is needed for admins to do their job managing conduct on an article, without being stonewalled. BLP vs. sanctions - A genuinely harmful BLP issue must take priority over most other editorial concerns. If there were a genuine issue with poorly sourced or unsourced material, and it was in a biographical article or shaded negatively towards a living person, I would expect it to be removed. Caveat - I would not expect it edit warred over or gamed. Was the reverted material (despite its revert as "POV") really a genuine BLP violation? - Unequivocably yes, but capable of correction. This is exactly the kind of thing BLP policy was set up to deal with quickly and override other concerns on. Let's look at the case. A living person, the joint subject of an article, has a part of the article saying that medically and factually, an Israeli doctor has examined his scars and they are not bullet scars as he claims ("scars that were supposedly caused by the Israeli gun-fire, were not left by bullets. Instead, they're the same scars identified by an Israeli doctor who treated Jamal after he was attacked by a Palestinian gang armed with axes"). The article is citing this as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Its effect is to discredit the subject of the article. We need a high quality and reliable source to support a claim that roughly speaking this is either 1/ considered the case by the medical world ("they are axe scars"), or 2/ backed by reliable sources ("source X opined that they are axe scars"). We have neither. A google search shows nothing except blogs. There is apparently not one reliable source in Google News. The actual article statement is backed up by a source of no merit whatsoever (a video purporting to be an Israeli TV recording), but no evidence backing this exists in any reliable source I can find. We have no real evidence it was "channel 10" or any Israeli TV channel (much less a reputable one), what its provenance and reliability are. There is a channel ident on the video, but that doesnt matter - I (or any video editing hack) could fake that. A website saying "I am official" doesnt make it official. A video saying "I am channel 10" doesnt make it channel 10. We need a reliable source - ie, provenance - not just a source that claims to be reliable. The doctor and hospital are named, and a statement that "In an anonymous video, Doctor X of hospital Y stated that he identified them as surgical scars from an operation he had performed in 1994" would be better. The translation issue is not a problem (we can check it, like any other non-English source.) But note - we still have no reliable source that this is a doctor, or the doctor, or that there was a surgery case as described, or that the interview is of a reliable nature and not tampered, no confirmation that the claims in the video are endorsed by any reliable source, not one reliable independent source refers to any of this at all... all we have is one anonymous video of a person who says they were a doctor in the 1990s holding up an X ray and making a claim. On this basis the introduction states the subject has been in effect, proven untruthful. We need a higher quality source to support such a statement. That is precisely what BLP is for. Dead end. Other edits reverted were POV. Whether or not serious doubt exists (it may well), these edits placed this doubt in Wikipedia's voice, and implied a negative slant to the bio throughout much of its introduction. Likely ChrisO's version is better in that it cites facts and statements, more neutrally and with less opinioning. In general with one exception NPOV issues do not by themselves reach the standard needed for summary deletion/reversion per BLP, when 0RR is in operation. The exception is when the overall effect is BLP breaching. Here it may well have been, since the introduction had been generally negatively shaded in tone against the subject by these edits. To sum up, ChrisO has admitted that he was at fault for stepping over previous restrictions. But in removing this item, and persisting, he's on target and has got BLP right, and given it the priority it needs. I put the issue down to communication and forethought rather than anything else, with good points coming out of it to go forward. ChrisO especially could have notified it better, and explained it more on the talk page. It wasn't well explained and was in a contentious area. An exceptional issue may need exceptional communication. Editing a contentious area with poor communication following on from prior breach of restriction is a risky proposition. In their intentions and the aim of their actions, both were impeccable - Elonka managing the dispute, ChrisO spotting the genuine serious BLP issue and persisting with removing it. The communication and understanding failed. Above average care, and above average communication, are needed on more sensitive contended areas... a person who doesnt, will often have a problem as a result. ChrisO didn't communicate. FT2 ( Talk |  email) 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with the above, especially FT2's expression of hope that Elonka & ChrisO can resolve; in light of this consensus in the those of the Committee who have posted, I think we should remove this request. James F. (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FDigwuren

Statement by Martintg

FayssalF was an involved party in this case, making unproven allegations of online intrusion by Digwuren. Whether or not these allegations were prompted by his earlier heated conflict with some editors over claims of admin abuse is not clear, however there is a clear conflict of interest in FayssalF's participation, which he acknowledges here and here. Nevertheless, it appears that FayssalF has voted anyway. Martintg ( talk) 11:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not some minor tweak or "just updating the wording" as claimed by Sam Blacketer, (who also voted in favour claiming " it would give more clarity to all concerned" which contradicts the proponent's statement " a better definition of the area of conflict needed, I'm afraid. Just "Eastern Europe" is too vague"), This is a major escalation from a civility remedy with blocks no longer than a month, to discretionary sanctions allowing blocks of up to one year for any reason with a very narrow definition of involved admin. This proposal was brought on the back of a single Polish/German topic dispute (which is not even within the scope of the original locus of dispute), so why should it be applicable to the Baltic States or Russia, but not Ireland? Where is the reward for those areas that have improved since 2007, if anything we should be seeing a narrowing of the scope of the current remedy to reflect these improvements, not introducing heavier sanctions. There is also an additional concern expressed by some quarters that certain admins may abuse this provision to settle some old scores, which in my view is valid given the bad blood generated in past conflicts in EE. Martintg ( talk) 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• In reply to FayssalF, Petri Krohn is actually Finnish, not Russian. The Digwuren conflict at its core was primarily between an Estonian and a Finn, were the Finn recruited some Russian editors to his cause. (Krohn is even now continuing his battle off-wiki in the Estonian press with his opinion piece " Estonia is a fascist apartheid state"). It is unfortunate that the remedies in the Digwuren case were extended to broadly cover Eastern Europe, and is now being exploited by Moreschi to further his agenda as expressed in his essay " The Plague". And it is a pity that some ArbCom members have apparently bought into it rather than look at the facts on the ground. I think Sarah777's rebuttal of Morsechi's thesis in her lampooning essay " The Real Plague" raises some real problems with Moreschi's misanthropic views on ethnic diversity of viewpoints in Wikipedia. Martintg ( talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Given the nature of the change being made in the case (ie just updating the wording of the general article sanctions), I can't really see that there is a problem here. The remedy has already been adopted and all that is happening now is a tweak to the way it works. Even if there was a clear conflict of interest (which I doubt) it would not matter very much. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Sam. There isn't a sufficient reason for us to ask FayssalF to change his mind on matter of recusal. James F. (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• If the case was limited to Digwuren I'd have had recused myself of course. The scale of this case goes far beyond that and involve a dozen of editors and many (hundreds?) of articles. Please bear in mind that I am neither a Russian, Estonian or a Polish editor. Also note that I had blocked both warring parties before; Digwuren (Estonian) and Petri Krohn (Russian) who were both banned for one year afterwards as a result of an ArbCom case. However, I am ready to recuse myself but would that change the outcome? If yes, then I'd gladly do it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see any good reason to go down the road of "jury selection", or allowing arguments to be brought on the recusal of Arbitrators. There is no particular problem with the current system of recusals. Charles Matthews ( talk) 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with above arb's opinions. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Can't sleep, clown will eat me ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [54]

Statement

The Arbitration Committee's attention has been drawn to recent actions by Can't sleep, clown will eat me ( talk · contribs), a respected long-time administrator. Since last editing on April 1 2008, Can't sleep has executed almost a hundred blocks of users using the administrative tools, either all or mostly without visible communication with the blocked users or other users. A request for desysopping filed on June 12 was rejected as premature in favor of a note that assumed good faith, advised him of the serious concerns, and requesting he did not block users without rectifying the situation.

On July 18 the community's attention was drawn to the incidents since that time, and an examination of a number of blocks by various users also identified a significant proportion as untenable, questionable, or poor judgement. The Committee re-examined these and concurred some blocks were flawed. Can't sleep also continued to be uncontactable, and has failed to respond to the concerns expressed about the merits of some of the blocks as well as the prior and present concerns about communications, when raised on his talkpage and elsewhere. Five of these blocks took place after the June 12 notice, which would usually be visible as a "new messages" banner presented on the blocking page on each occasion, and upon the "block successful" pages that followed.

As a result of the above, a number of users have indicated that the Committee may need to revisit the case and review the user's actions. This is in addition to the prior request which was deemed premature. [55]. The Committee agrees there are grounds for these concerns.

FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor amendment: Clown's email address is on his user page. However this wouldn't help a user who looks for it on the standard place, at Special:Emailuser (eg from his talk page), and doesn't change the communication problems at all. It can't be assumed that a blocked user who has checked and found Emailuser was not working, would think to read a user page in detail as well. A working and validated emailuser address is a norm for RFA; likewise so is good responsive communication for active administrators. Examples where this is stated: Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship ^{( added as common expectation/criterion Oct 30 2005) ( exact reason stated, Nov 10 2005)} and Wikipedia:Administrators ^{( "failure to communicate")}. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 22:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana

Please take note that as this was being written and posted, I found an e-mail address on a mailing list, that he used to use. He has been e-mailed, so it might be wise to give him some time to reply, even though it would seem unlikely that he will due to the actions he has been taking despite notices being left on his talk page.

Comment by User:B

He has had a month to reply since this came up before and has not done so. Several users emailed him and left talk page messages for him, including me. There was pretty much unanimous agreement that if it happened again, he should be blocked and/or desysopped forthwith. Finding one - essentially a "this is your last chance, we mean it this time", is a really bad idea - he's ALREADY on his last chance. -- B ( talk) 18:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see it above so here, for reference, is the previous discussion on ANI from a month ago: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#Blocks_by_CSCWEM. -- B ( talk) 18:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by AuburnPilot

CSCWEM has been asked numerous times to explain his use of admin tools, specifically related to a fair number of inappropriate blocks. He's continued to use the tools without communicating with anybody, including those IPs and accounts that he has blocked. CSCWEM should be desysopped, and preferably should have to answer to the community, not just the arbitration committee. - auburnpilot talk 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Iceflow

It is regrettable to see this action being undertaken. I have been on Wikipedia almost 3 years and CSCWEM has always been a conscientious, trieless worker out to help the site. A question to the Arbitrators though; is this the first time CSCWEM has been bought before the ARBCOM, or have their been previous incidents where his blocks/bans have been questionable or not up to his usual standard? Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 18:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- it doesn't really matter. Admins are expected to communicate with the community if they are going to be actively using their tools. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 19:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply -- I only asked because given his previous work on here, this seems very uncharacteristic. I wanted to know if he had ever had a previous spell like this. Thor Malmjursson ( talk)

That's my impression too. I really don't understand, either, hence why the note - and the motions below discussed on the list - assume there will be a good reason, and why they aim to protect users from problematic blocking, and hope for some good explanation and a return to normal activity. But in the meantime there can't be more blocks of this kind, there needs to be communication and sorting this out back to normality before blocking gets used further, some reassurance it's okay. As I think we all agree, clown' is a good and long standing user, so it's more perplexity than anything, and "no blocking in the meantime till discussed and all okay again". FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Maxim

Uhh... his e-mail is own his userpage: cannot.sleep.clown.will.eat.megmail.com. Maxim _(talk) 20:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:LessHeard vanU

When placing the previous Request I did attempt to contact CSCWEM by the email address given on the userpage. I got no response, including no failure message regarding delivery. I realise that this does not mean it didn't get caught in a spam filter or was otherwise not read, but it seems that it was another line of communication that wasn't responded to. I would also take the opportunity to re-iterate both my concerns regarding CSCWEM's behaviour and the plea to make any sanction without prejudice to a resysopping upon reasonable explanation/undertaking given in the earlier Request. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by any other user

Clerk notes

There are 13 active arbitrators, so 7 is the number of votes needed for the motion to pass. Given the circumstances, the arbitrators may choose to activate any motion that passes as soon as there is a seventh vote in favour, should they decide not to wait the standard 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Is FT2 considered an active arbitrator for this motion? I assume he is, just wanted to check. Avruch ^T 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've counted him as un-recused so far as I can't see anything which would make him involved in the dispute, or a direct recusal from him. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

1) Can't sleep, clown will eat me ( talk · contribs) is directed not to perform any further blocks or administrator actions pending his communicating with the Arbitration Committee, at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration or by e-mail. This action is intended to be temporary, pending resolution of the concerns that have been raised.

Should Can't sleep, clown will eat me perform any administrative action prior to the Committee confirming the matter has been satisfactorily closed, then his administrative privileges will be suspended, pending resolution of the concerns that have been raised. In such an event, he may apply for them back by application to the Committee or via the requests for adminship process.

Support

Oppose

1. -- FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3. CSCWEM would have had to be logged in to perform blocks, and would therefore be aware of talk page communication expressing concern. The blocks have continued. This situation would still be a problem if the blocks were all good; as shown on the Administrators' noticeboard, and by my own investigation, some are questionable. This direction is therefore not likely to be effective. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Per Sam.
5. Deskana (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Per Sam. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Unresponsiveness suggests this may not be the best option. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC) Tried requesting already, but to no avail.

Abstain

2) Can't sleep, clown will eat me ( talk · contribs)'s administrator privileges are suspended, pending his communicating with the Arbitration Committee, at Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration or by e-mail. This action is intended to be temporary pending resolution of the concerns that have been raised.

Support

1. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
2. jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Paul August ☎ 18:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I hope that CSCWEM responds satisfactorily to Deskana's email, in which case his administrator privileges can be restored.
5. Deskana (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Desysopping until we get an explanation from CSCWEM is the best recourse here in order to prevent further questionable blocks without any sign of communication. I've also sent him an email today and waiting for a satisfactory or positive response. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 23:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
8. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 23:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

I would ask the following be done in this case:

1. Charles Matthews' statements are retracted.
2. All findings about me are vacated.
3. They are replaced with the following: Due to several incidents of poor judgement, possibly aggravated by severe illness he was suffering at the time, User:Vanished user, who now edits as User:Shoemaker's Holiday, voluntarily resigns all rights to adminship for one year from this date. After that time, should I wish to become an admin, he may apply by RfA or request to the committee. In either case, he and the committee will select a suitable mentor.

- Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Jehochman ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (instigator)
• PHG ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified: [56]

Statement by Jehochman

We have a big problem in that PHG's convincing looking citations can fool a majority of good faith editors. In attempting to clean up the article Buddhism and Christianity that I found listed at the fringe theory noticeboard, I spotted a familiar a pattern of original research, original maps that have no sources, and copyright violations in the form of book cover uploads. Sure enough, I found PHG had heavily edited the article. This is exactly the same pattern as we saw before.

Regrettably, PHG's mentorship with Coren ( talk · contribs) has ended. Coren appears to have been inactive since May 8, 2008. The mess of damaged articles remains. Attempts to fix this mess meet with resistance because editors are unaware of the problems. I have been asked to prove, yet again, that sources have been misrepresented. Please excuse me for not having 8 hours to drive to a research library, find an obscure book, and go through the article line by line to yet again demonstrate the same problem that was demonstrated at arbitration.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Christianity, in particular, this edit: [57]. I am at a loss for how to solve these problems. Could the Committee please review this situation and provide guidance. Perhaps an additional remedy is needed to expedite clean up of the messes. Ideally, we need the ability to blank, revert, or delete articles to a state that is untainted by misrepresented sources. It is neither efficient nor scalable to have to go through all the same arguments as we faced at arbitration for each instance of the problem. By now, there should be a presumption that PHG's information on East-West cultural connections from the time period prior to arbitration is not reliable. Additionally, I think PHG needs to stand aside and not obstruct clean up efforts in any way. Jehochman ^Talk 18:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick7: Click Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance to see all the time that has thus far been invested in dispute resolution. Jehochman ^Talk 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The pattern in this article is very obvious, given my close attention to the prior case. Regrettably, uninvolved editors like yourself generally don't see the problems on quick inspection. This is the great danger of subtle misrepresentation and insertion of original research. As you point out, PHG has not touched the article for a long time, but it has not been fixed yet because the damage is not obvious. I really do not have the time to engage in lengthy discussion on each and every tainted article while attempting to fix it. There has to be a better way. Jehochman ^Talk 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought about stubbing the article, but as you can see from the AfD discussion, blanking and starting from scratch has significant opposition. I do not think changing the forum of discussion from AfD to the article talk page would have helped in any way. At least AfD helps bring in some fresh points of view. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is a hard problem, which is why I have come here for advice. Jehochman ^Talk 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, please stop with the straw man logical fallacy. I have not suggested banning PHG here. Could you look a bit more closely at some of PHG's recent contribution. Actually go get the source and look at it. For just one example, Siege of Bangkok, mentioned by PHG below. I have been told by somebody who speaks French that one of PHG's sources is a book by Michael Smithies of translations of first hand accounts by French soldiers and missionaries. Book review This bears checking. It looks a lot like PHG is sill using Wikipedia to publish original research. The past ruling may be insufficient to solve the problem. I'd like to see mandatory mentorship for PHG's editing in all areas of the encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting places to list articles for cleanup, and I like Shell Kinney's idea that PHG needs to find a new mentor. This should be mandatory, and include all editing. The mentor needs to speak French. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few articles to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. Should we move that list to a dedicated page, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Checklist? The list is associated with the arbitration case, and may include things that are not closely related to Franks and Mongols. 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for temporary restriction

Per Mathsci's report below, I request PHG to be blocked until a mentor is appointed. It is not fair to those cleaning up his messes in article space to allow this pattern of editing to continue without any sort of restraint. PHG is using up a huge amount of volunteer time. Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:PHG

I think I contributed only about 15% of this article Christianity and Buddhism, most of my contribution being historical background ( Indo-Greeks etc...) and photographs. My last contribution gets back to August 30, 2007, about a year ago [58]. Just look at the state and length of the article, even before I contributed anything [59]. This is old stuff, and I will be glad to discuss if there are any specific issues to be addressed. We're all here to contribute content as best as we can. For some of my latest contributions, please see France-Thailand relations or Siege of Bangkok, which I am very proud to contribute. Cheers. PHG ( talk) 04:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My articles France-Thailand relations or Siege of Bangkok do use as one of their sources the very interesting Michael Smithies' Three Military Accounts of the 1688 revolution in Siam ISBN 9745240052. The book is organized as follows: a Preface and General Introduction by Michael Smithies, an English translation of the account published by General Desfarges with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of the account by de la Touche with Preface by Smithies, an English translation of an account by Vollant des Verquains with Preface by Smithies, a Conclusion and Chronology by Michael Smithies. Altogether, Smithies gives a rather precise account of the events related to the Siamese revolution over the 40 or so pages which he personnally authors. For some details, I also sometimes relied on the translations themselves. As far as I know, this is accepted by Wikipedia, provided that the primary accounts have been published by a reliable secondary source, and that the primary sources are used for purposed of factual documentation, which is the case here (see Wikipedia:No original research). Cheers. PHG ( talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kenrick7

Dispute resolution? -- Kendrick7 ^talk 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but PHG hasn't edited that article since 30 August 2007, [60] [61] and that ArbCom case came into effect in March of this year. The case explicitly doesn't forbid him from commenting on Talk page, so I'm sure commenting on AfD's is fair game. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You trotted him out as a bogey-man and cited his having edited the article as a reason for deleting the article. [62] It's a stretch of the F-Ma case to declare that everything he ever touched is permanently sullied, and he was right to call you out on it. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess you could always just de-ref the article, i.e. yank all the references (not added in the past 11 months) and put them on the article talk page, and then replace them all with {{ fact}} tags, or information that is especially suspect with {{ dubious}}. Stick a big {{ unreferenced}} tag up top, and just let the article evolve from there. -- Kendrick7 ^talk 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article was pretty far along before (apparently) PHG ever got there. [63] I don't see how undoing the labors of dozens of editors over several years solves anything. There's no "quick fix." -- Kendrick7 ^talk 20:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

I think this might be solvable by having PHG choose a new mentor, since Coren does not appear to be performing that duty any longer. Shell ^babelfish 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Elonka makes a good suggestion - we already had a de facto central area where we were listing articles to review and I'm sure no one would mind if Jehochman has other articles he wants to add to the list. Shell ^babelfish 05:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

I'm not entirely understanding why this is at ArbCom again. The article that Jehochman is talking about, has not been edited by PHG in several months. So what exactly is it that Jehochman wants the arbitrators to do? Ban PHG for something he's not doing anymore? As near as I can tell, ever since the last clarification a few months ago, PHG has been doing a very good job at abiding by his sanctions. He is still creating articles at a rapid rate, but he is staying out of the medieval topic area, has not been engaging in excessive debate at talkpages, and appears (last I checked) to be sticking to reliable English-language sources. I do agree with Shell Kinney that since PHG's old mentor appears to be inactive, that it would be wise to choose a new mentor (I recommend Shell, if PHG would accept). As for cleanup, I recommend that anything new that is found, that requires cleanup from PHG's past efforts, be added to the list at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. We are still working our way through the dozens of other PHG-edited articles with NPOV problems, so it couldn't hurt to add a few more, perhaps in a section like, "Additional articles for review", to make it clear that these may be in slightly different topic areas. At least that will provide a depository where identified articles can be clearly listed as still needing review, and will help identify the scope of the problem. -- El on ka 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

I am adding these comments at the request of Jehochman, following a private communication. Having looked at some of PHG's recent edits to articles connected with the Siege of Bangkok and Siamese revolution (1688), there do still appear to be problems with his edits. He appears to have used as his principal source translations of primary documents, reports by french soldiers present at the time, recently translated from French by Michael Smithies. A review [64] of this translation makes it clear that it requires the skills of a professional historian to interpret these first-hand accounts, plagued by rivalries and jealousies between different French factions. Other sources are not mentioned, e.g. Hutchinson's classic Revolution in Siam [65] and the very recent Witness to a Revolution: Siam 1688 [66], both translations of contemporary accounts. So apparently most of the article seems to be derived from primary sources and not a secondary text by a professional historian. The Thailand article in Distant Lands and Diverse Continents: The French Experience in Aisa, 1600-1700 by Ronald S. Love gives more detailed references, including a 40 page paper from 1935 by Hutchinson in the Journal of the Siam Society and Thailand: a short history by David K. Wyatt (117-118). Detailed secondary sources (such as the detailed account of Hutchinson) have not been identified by PHG. I hope these comments are useful. Mathsci ( talk) 13:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• I've asked FloNight (on her talk page) about this issue's status since PHG seems to have ignored the one offer of mentoring by Angus (see PHG's talk). — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Per Elonka. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Along with the emerging consensus here, all we need to do is to find a volunteer to replace Coren as PHG's mentor. Are there any volunteers? Sam Blacketer ( talk) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
• Getting a new mentor asp seems to be the obvious solution. And in the future, PHG needs to let the Committee know if his mentor stops working with him. In the future, not letting us know might result in loss of editing privileges or other editing restrictions. FloNight ♥♥♥ 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I see one offer to act as a mentor on User:PHG's talk page. Will be a good idea to get several people to help, since this is an ongoing situation. Any one else that is interested can contact me on my talk page, email the arbcom mailing list or me, or leave a message on PHG's talk page. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I followed up with PHG and Angusmclellan. [67], [68] and brought the Committee up to date on ArbCom mailing list today. Will try to get the mentoring arrangement finalized in the next few days. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
      • PHG has agreed on Angusmclellan as a new mentor. I notified the rest of the Committee and there were no objections. So let's go forward with the mentoring arrangement for now. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Elonka, Sam, and Flo. James F. (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• I think Mathsci's comments are telling. They suggest an ongoing problem. Yes a new mentor — but PHG must be made to understand and follow our policy with regard to original research. Paul August ☎ 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• I also agree with Elonka, Sam, and Flo. -- bainer ( talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• WJBscribe ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Shoemaker's Holiday notified

Statement by WJBscribe

I would like ArbCom to clarify whether this remedy precludes the desysopped user from requesting adminship through the usual channels:

"4) Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time, and the case provisionally closed. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months."

It has been noted that the Committee voted for this provision in preference to one which expressly provided for a return of adminship through the usual means.
I would also appreciate guidance for future reference as to how bureaucrats should interpret ArbCom remedies that are silent as to the availabiliy of the usual remedies. I note that it is usually the Committee's practice to deal with this matter expressly. For instance the relevant remedy of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar states: "He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means" and that in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango states "Tango may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee." However, the Committee is also sometimes silent on this issue, for example in the remedies at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. There seems to have been no view that MONGO is prevented from applying through RfA due to those remedies. It seems to me logical to presume that Committee intends the community to be able to restore access unless it expressly says otherwise but as other interpretations have been put forwards in discussion surrounding this recent withdrawn RfA, I think clarification would be wise.
Regards, WjB scribe 02:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Replies to Thebainer

As I pointed out above, it is not the case that Arbitration remedies are always specific on this point. Take for example these remedies. I would appreciate guidance here, are the two editors in that case (and others where ArbCom does not specify whether or not the usual means are available) able to apply for their access to be reinstated via the usual means? WjB scribe 05:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to "the remedy here did not have that ambiguity", I'm sorry but I find that comment fairly insulting. I came here asking ArbCom to clear up the ambiguity in one of their decisions. I think my reasons for doing so are fairly clear: in the two places this has arisen [69] [70] the community seems to have been pretty split in interpreting whether an RfA is permissible. I would not, as a bureaucrat, have felt the remedy was clear enough that the RfA was a defacto nullity. It also obviously was not unambiguously clear to Shoemaker's Holiday that he could not request the tools via the usual means or he would not have accepted the RfA nomination. It is rather frustrating for the body making decisions to also announce that these decisions are not ambiguous after they have seen the community struggle to agree on the correct interpretation. I do not think my request here is complicated or unreasonable, I simply want answers to two questions: (1) is Shoemaker's Holiday able to request adminship via the normal means and (2) what guidance can ArbCom offer bureaucrats in interpreting their decisions where they choose not to specifically mention whether or not the usual means are available? So far I distill the following from your answer:

(1) No.

(2) If ArbCom is totally silent as to any means for regaining adminship, the usual means are permitted. If however the Committee makes a provision for appeal as a means of reinstatement but says nothing about the usual means, they are excluded.

Am I understanding correctly and can you see why it was a bit much to expect the community to intuit this? WjB scribe 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk)

If we're going to review this case, now's as good as a time as any to look over the problems of it.

In it, a 2-month-old block was the cause of a rush to voting in 12 hours, before I provided any evidence, and a refusal to grant another couple weeks so that I could sit my exams.

In one finding of fact, evidence was researched and created by the Arbcom that did not appear in the evidence page. ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Proposed_decision#Vanished_user.27s_use_of_administrative_tools) While not itself a problem, this was followed by the arbitrators ignoring repeated comments by several people that the diffs did not support the statements made based on them. ( first thread second thread third thread, see also the (now deleted) Request for comment the Arbcom asked to be run.)

This is a particular problem when the person edits under their real name, like I did, and has a fairly unique name.

In one part, the one arbitrator oversighted a diff where I volunteered to give up my sysop for health reasons, but did not forward it on to the other arbitrators. As the stress-levels caused by the case made my health problems far worse - I moved from ill, but just about coping to having to drop out for a semester of university - this attempt to protect me from others learning about my state of health backfired severely.

I would like a clarification of how the arbcom thinks these problems happened, how they plan to avoid them in future, and, if possible, an apology for the severe negative effects on my life.

Thank you, Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As to bainer's statement below, After that case, I want as little to do with arbcom as possible, and would decline any re-sysop that ties me to the people involved with that case for 6 months. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 04:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Bainer, please note the following:

• From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#MONGO_is_desysopped: For misuse of his administrative tools and failure to relate appropriately with other administrators, MONGO is desysopped. Passed 6 to 0 at 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MONGO 2 ran 22 January 2008 to 26 January 2008

No statement disallowing RFA; subsequent RFA took place without special appeal to ArbCom. Durova ^Charge! 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, what announcement did ArbCom ever make about that? And why didn't it either clarify the Seabhcan case or expressly forbid resysopping through RFA in the Matthew Hoffman case? The rest of us aren't privy to the Committee's private deliberations; we cannot intuit a secret change that abandons existing precedent. Durova ^Charge! 08:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To the arbitrators who have commented below, you fail to explain the reasons why Shoemaker's Holiday merits prohibition from RFA (which you never made explicit until now). The only reason I have ever seen put forward privately or publicly for this extraordinary prohibition regards his own health, and he has disclosed that to me freely and fully himself. Furthermore, if this is the rationale, his adamant desire is that the Committee refrain from further interference in a matter none of you are qualified to deal with and that you have consistently mishandled. Durova ^Charge! 01:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar:

For showing consistently poor judgment in performing administrative actions, Alkivar's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated by appeal to the Committee, but not through the usual means.

When you previously forbade normal RFA, you made that explicit. You're changing the rules as you go. If I'm mistaken, show me one announcement--anywhere onsite--stating when this supposed innovation in the decision formula came into existence. The Alkivar case closed only three months before Matthew Hoffman. Durova ^Charge! 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New arbitrators and passers-by please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Vanished_user: the Committee acted in open defiance of a solid community consensus; this person should not have been desysopped. Durova ^Charge! 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

At this juncture I wish to remind the Committee it has been my opinion for many months that the Matthew Hoffman case was the worst-handled arbitration I have ever seen, and rather than remedy any of its numerous errors the Committee appears intent upon compounding them. Hollow apologies mean little; I would like to see for starters Charles Matthews withdraw the repeated personal attacks he posted to the case pages. Ideally you ought to be vacating this case because it was requested in a non-emergency situation with no prior attempt at dispute resolution--thus outside your mandate.

Virtually the only other recent case that closed with a prohibition on RFA was the Alkivar case; the off-wiki evidence regarding Alkivar was entirely or almost entirely my own submission and I assembled it from public records. I have been never been under any pledge of confidentiality regarding that material. Until now I have chosen to handle it with discretion because of its sensitive nature; that does not oblige me to remain silent. Durova ^Charge! 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Some of those commenting seem not to have noticed that the committee has pointed out that its decision was based in part on private information submitted to the committee by the affected user. The user also posted what I hope was only a summary of that information on Wikipedia at one time (and a commentator above notes that it has since been oversighted), and even that summary, which I recall is material and significant. Editors who don't have access to the private data, which I probably don't have in full, really don't know what they are talking about. So 1) passers by can't usefully comment and 2) there really is private data that should keep this out of the communitys hands unless (which I think would be a really really really bad idea) the affected editor chooses to release that data publicly. GRBerry 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply by Shoemaker's Holiday

I have post-viral fatigue syndrome, rather severe, and this causes occasional periods, up to a month long, where I am largely bedridden or nearly bedridden, with the corresponding difficulty in responding in a timely manner. The arbcom case was opened after Charles Matthews contacted me in one such period about a block, then again in a later, second period. Having forgotten about the first messages after I came out of the bad period, I felt I should make some effort to respond, even if I was still in a bad period. However, because I was severely ill, made a hash of it.

As I had such health issues, I offered to Arbcom to resign my adminship, if they felt that these occasional difficulties meant that I would be unable to fulfil admin actions in a timely manner. Flonight felt that it was a bad idea to admit my illness under my own name, and oversighted it. At the time, I found her statement convincing.

What I certainly did not expect was for everyone to take this information, and then, by the way they discussed it (which, particularly as arbcom itself recommended its suppression, one would think you would know better than to bring it up in the first place), created a strong impression that I had some deep, dark secret that meant that I could never be trusted. If you say that there is secret evidence, and this secret evidence means I shouldn't be an admin, then it makes it sound like I had, say, intentionally acted to damage Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is I made some bad judgements when severely ill, and could not guarantee that I would not fall ill again.

While I don't blame GRBerry, I really feel that Arbcom's actions with this evidence - taking an admission that someone was severely ill, suppressing it, then, when questioned about me, referring to secret evidence that they can't go into, only served to make me look bad - far worse than if the information was in the open. I have a severe case of post-viral fatigue syndrome, developed after I caught flu while working as a farm labourer, and was literally dragged out of bed to help with the milking, making the illness far worse. I would question whether that rises to the level of evidence, let alone how it was treated - as secret evidence that meant I should not be an admin. Worse, you are taking an admission of my health in December, and using it to say I should not be an admin due to secret evidence in July. The fact of the matter is I am doing far better now than I was then.

I hereby ask for this case to be reopened, every finding of fact rewritten in order to honestly state what you made me look far worse by attempting to conceal - acting as if I was part of a sneaky campaign to gain power, instead of simply an admin with poor guidance as to what conflict of interest was, and who made a few bad decisions under the effects of illness.

I would also ask an apology for forcing me into a corner whereby the only option available to me was to make private matters public, lest I end up looking far worse.

Being ill is not a violation of Wikipedia policy, and forcing me to reveal full details of my illness as a requirement for a request for adminship violated my privacy with no Wikipedia policy justification. Indeed, you should never have talked about secret evidence, as noone would ever presume that such comments did not relate to unrevealed policy violations by me. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• While I did not participate in that case, I can say that desysopping remedies are always explicit about the methods by which the person concerned can reapply to be a sysop, identifying that it may be by the " usual means", by application to the Committee, or by some other means. In this case the method specified was "by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards", and as such a request for adminship is not permitted within that decision. I would suggest that if people disagree with the decision they should appeal it. -- bainer ( talk) 04:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Re Wjbscribe and Durova's point about the Seabhcan case, that was the last case to include the old, ambiguous wording regarding desysopping. Beginning in early 2007, cases have expressly identified the method for reapplying. I believe Darwinek was the first case to do so. In any event, regardless of any ambiguity in old cases (that may or may not need resolving now), the remedy here did not have that ambiguity, as it was express about the methods available. -- bainer ( talk) 06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Re Durova, I can't speak to what the then members of the Committee were thinking nineteen months ago in the Seabhcan case. All I was saying is that in every single case since then involving a desysopping, the Committee has expressly identified the methods by which the relevant user could re-apply for sysophood. I don't think there was any "announcement", it's just been included explicitly in all the remedies passed since. -- bainer ( talk) 13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Re WjBscribe, apologies if I caused offence; I now realise you've been interpreting the remedies to permit everything that is not absolutely prohibited, instead of only permitting what is expressly allowed. The answers you've distilled are essentially correct:

1. No, a request for adminship is not available in this case;
2. If the remedy says that the usual means are allowed, then the usual means are allowed; if it does not, then they are not.

As for cases that are silent as to methods, well, there haven't been any since the Seabhcan case in December 2006. It may be that we need to go back now and clarify those, but every case in the past eighteen months has been quite explicit. -- bainer ( talk) 13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• The point of the remedy as written was to require the user to contact ArbCom prior to gaining administrator tools again by any means. The Committee now does this whenever the Committee makes a decision from information that is not available to the whole community. In every case, contacting the Committee prior to starting a RFA can be useful since frequently we have knowledge about ongoing issues that may not be obvious. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The case was handled in an extremely disjointed manner that added extra stress for Shoemaker's Holiday at a time when he least needed it. For that I'm extremely sorry. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
• To Shoemaker's Holiday: I'm very sorry for the pain and distress this situation has caused you. The removal of your administrator privileges was well warranted — but your case could certainly have been handled better — for that I'm sorry and for that I apologize. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• FloNight says it well. I have added below some comments on the "by application" style of remedy.

  In the present case, the problem was, there was genuine and repeated misuse of the tools. The other problem was, the case was badly handled, disjointed, it is hard to see any kind of satisfactory-ness to it, and the resulting process was unfair to a stressed user who needed above all good and steady handling. Whilst less could have gone wrong, it is not clear whether the end result would have been much different in terms of remedy provisions. The decision was probably right, but despite many people trying to be accomodating, the mishandling led to a lot of avoidable anger and upset that didn't help the user at all, and that aspect deserves an apology.

  The condition of "by application to the Committee" in this case was for multiple reasons: ⁽¹⁾ the user had disclosed personal matters which directly pertains to appropriate use of the tools (it would not have been fair to him to force disclosure as a prerequisite to regain the tools, nor fair to the community to allow it to be hidden if he sought RFA); ⁽²⁾ there was repeated mis-use which is not acceptable to allow to recur and regardless of good intentions, without clear conditions and help, he might accidentally do so again in the course of time, under stress; ⁽³⁾ he might not get a fair chance at the tools back (both usual admin concerns, and also other users with concerns, in the areas he edits); ⁽⁴⁾ he might be over-stressed by RFA and have problems with the process. It was for these reasons -- and it should be emphasized heavily, to protect and help mostly him -- that this remedy was stated to be "by application".

  That said his feelings are understandable. If he emailed us that he wished to take his chance with the community, and is able to disclose to the community without minimizing, the relevant information that others would need to make a fully informed communal decision (or will accept conditions that will fully cover this problem area, or will take his chances on his future conduct without any "safety net"), then I would endorse a committee decision to allow it. The protective conditions (parole) specified in the remedy would hold either way since those are intended to protect others rather than the user in question, by making it easier to take action if he did slip back after regaining them.

  FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on "by application to the Committee" remedies

In all but the most serious cases, there is often a hope the user will return to adminship. Even desysopping is protective. Temporary desysopping is often used two ways: as a means to give a final warning rather than going directly to permanent desysopping, for a user who may not believe it can happen and might repeat, and, because a user is hitting a bad patch and needs time to regain calm and balance, ride out their instable period, and gradually ease themselves back into tool use following a "bad time" or a gross misjudgement under stress. (The latter may happen when an administrator misused their tools, and seems likely to repeat it again, next time they are faced with serious stress.) We usually decide "by application to the Committee" to give this a chance of happening appropriately and fairly, and to protect the user, the community/other users, or both, as necessary: Fair chance - In many cases it is not our intention to permanently deprive a user of their tools, else we would say so. It's not enough to just say "they may reapply via RFA" and wash our hands of it; some users may never realistically have a fair chance in open debate after an Arbcom desysopping. We wish to ensure that if they do their part and change, they will have a fair chance to get the bit back. For example a user who is active in dispute resolution and blocking, may have made many enemies who will be only too glad to "stick the knife in" on their one mistake. When we say "temporary desysop", we want to make sure they do in fact have the reasonable chance we have promised, that if their conduct is good they may stand a chance to regain their bit, even if this takes time and involves going slowly. "By application" is one way to ensure a user can instead in the course of time, have a discussion and re-hearing by the same Committee that originally endorsed the desysopping. Private matters - There may be private issues we want the chance to chance to check out, so we don't have to raise them in the middle of an RFA. Protective conditions - There may be conditions to be agreed, for example: Conditions related to private matters (eg "no proxies", "one account", "no interaction with X", "have you dropped Y"), Conditions made to protect the desysopped user, for example in ensuring a generally good user will have support, refine their judgement and avoid mistakes or a second desysopping, in areas of past weakness (mentorship, parole, Arbcom resysopping without stress of RFA, etc), or Conditions that reassure or protect others that it is safe to "trial" them having back the tools under some kind of supervision (which in some cases is the only fair way to do so), or that they will be desysopped if they repeat the same conduct with any other user. If none of these apply, then usually the re-RFA would be "in the usual way". Essentially it's a safeguard - sometimes it (1) protects the user from misjudgement of the community, sometimes it (2) protects the community (or specific users/disputes) from the reintroduction of a disruptive problem, sometimes it (3) just gives us the chance to ensure private matters are wrapped up and history before the user goes back, and sometimes it (4) ensures there is a gradual reacquisition of tools under some kind of parole, probation or mentorship that helps ensure the user avoids the same mistakes again. As such, a user who goes directly to RFA would be fine sometimes.... but the problem is, it won't always be clear in advance which cases it is fine (but at their own risk), and which cases we actually know of real concerns we want to check out quietly first, or private factors we want to consider off the wiki. The way to look at it is, we are hoping to work with such users to try and get the best result all round. We aren't "against" them as such. If we say no, it's for genuine concerns -- whether for them or about them. Either way a desysopped user whose remedy says "by application to the Committee" is given that remedy for good reasons, and ignoring it will usually have one of two results: - if it was to protect them, they will lose whatever protection they might have had (they are essentially on their own at RFA and without any help or protection we might have arranged for them), or if it was to protect others, then we will have to explain our concerns on the wiki or in exceptional cases (I don't know if this has happened to date) perhaps summarily state conditions rather than amicably discuss them, or even request directly that the user in fact not be resysopped due to concerns of a privacy- or abuse-related nature, or due to concerns we are unable to state on-wiki which are private or to protect some other user(s). Whichever it is, ignoring the decision might lead to a mess. FT2 ( Talk |  email) 01:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since the full circumstances of the de-sysopped user were disclosed to the AC in confidence, the only appropriate way for this user to regain the tools is to convince the AC – the only group of users with full knowledge of the situation – that the circumstances have changed such that we have confidence in his ability to handle adminship without problems. I wish to state categorically that at this time I am very far from convinced that the circumstances have sufficiently changed and that I do not have confidence that Shoemaker's Holiday is ready for adminship at this time. A significant part of my lack of confidence is the user's failing to come to terms with the fact that his behavior with the admin tools, for which he was de-sysopped, was unacceptable and inexcusable. Instead, he has fixated on perceived injustices in the process and minimized his own culpability. This leads me to believe that should he regain admin tools, further problems will occur. However, as with several other arbitrators above, if Shoemaker's Holiday wishes instead to submit to RFA with full and frank disclosure of the circumstances surrounding his desysopping I would support that, too. It would not be fair on the user community to ask them to decide whether to support his regaining admin status without the benefit of such full knowledge. By submitting private evidence to the Committee, a user must understand that keeping such confidences binds the Committee to decisions that cannot be fully explained in public. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• I'm in full agreement with Morven here. Kirill ^{( prof)} 12:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• username2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist

I'd like to appeal this ban, because it was decided upon and imposed while I was on an extended break. I was not given the opportunity to confront my accusers (whose exaggerations, distortions and outright falsehoods I was therefore unable to refute), and was presented with a fait accompli upon my return to Wikipedia.

The basis for my request is that I was tried in absentia, and I don't understand why. What is the point in restricting an editor who does not edit? By the time the decision was reached, I had not edited for two months. A further thirteen were to pass before I returned. Simple misunderstandings on the parts of the ArbCom members could have been cleared up, such as the seeming belief of one that " Northern Ireland" (referred to in the decision) is the northern half of Ireland, which it is not. Put simply, I was not given a chance to argue my case, and I would like that chance.

Statement by uninvolved One Night In Hackney

I can only assume this is some sort of bizarre joke on the part of Lapsed Pacifist, given he is a tendentious editor in virtually every area he edits.

His ban on articles relating to the Northern Ireland conflict was evaded when he made contentious edits to Black and Tans, such as adding Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom (which he quickly changed to Category:British terrorists), then trying to add his newly-created (and since deleted) Category:State terrorism in the United Kingdom, all based on nothing more than his POV. He is single minded in pushing an anti-British, anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-almost anything POV. For example relating to Americans in Iraq, he changes " private military contractors" to " mercenaries" (or similar) which is a major violation of NPOV and not supported by the cited source, and edit warring to retain the term - [71] [72]. Sourcing that "The controversial use of white phosphorus by US forces has resulted in a large increase in birth deformities in the city" and edit warring to retain the sentence and sources. It was sourced by this, this, and this none of which make the link as a 100% fact, merely that there are calls for an investigation (eg, the sources state "Families in Fallujah are calling for an investigation into the rise of birth defects after the US used phosphorus over the Iraqi city in 2004", "Families in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are calling for an investigation into their claims of a rise in the number of birth defects", "The evidence is anecdotal because there are no records from the era of Saddam Hussein to compare their stories against", "The indications remain anecdotal, in the absence of either a study, or any available official records") - [73] [74]. Describing Israeli settlements as "colonies" and edit warring to retain the term - [75] [76] [77] [78] (many more diffs available for "colonies"). Claiming the Garda Síochána (Irish police) engaged in extrajudicial punishment with Shell to Sea protesters (where he has a conflict of interest) despite it being complete original research on his part, and edit warring to retain it - [79] [80] [81] [82] [83].

That's from a quick look at his contribs, and there's many, many more controversial edits especially in the Israel/Palestine area and articles relating to the war in Iraq. What ArbCom (or any admins reading this) should really consider is whether Lapsed Pacifist should be banned from Wikipedia as a whole, not whether his current ban from certain articles should be upheld.

Statement by GRBerry

Blocked twice in the last month for violating this restriction and in that time put on notice [84] for problematic editing under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Does not to me appear to be demonstrating that they would be editing without problems in this area. This restriction is broader than the discretionary sanctions in The Troubles arbcomm case, so it is not an adequate substitute. See the WP:AE archives related to the two recent blocks: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive23#Lapsed Pacifist and the second section on that page with identical title. GRBerry 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rockpocket

My block appears to be one that precipitated this appeal, so I will comment to explain that. I noticed that request for Arbitration Enforcement at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive23#Lapsed Pacifist. I concluded that his edits [85] [86] to were in violation of the remedy: Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles. LP protests that the Black and Tans article did not directly relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. While the Black and Tans were clearly operational only prior to the creation of Northern Ireland, I interpreted that articles "related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland" would include about the recent history of conflict that resulted in the creation of the constituent country. If the edits had been non controversial then I would probably had overlooked it, but they content was clearly a continuation of the "habitual point of view editing" that was found during the ArbCom. If the remedy is to be upheld, I would ask that ArbCom clarify whether they meant that remedy to be interpreted narrowly, or to include articles that relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland more generally. Rockpocke t 02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• No statement by Lapsed_Pacifist saying the reason that editing restrictions should be removed. On my first review, I'm not seeing any reason for the sanction to be lifted at this time. Right now, the community is dealing with current issues. I see no reason to intervene at this time. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Lapsed_Pacifist's request on my talk page, I'm commenting further. I think the editing restrictions are needed so that collaborative article work can happen on this topic.

• • To answer the other question:User conduct is the driving force behind our remedy, so we need to include the articles that bring out the user conduct problems. I suggest the broader interpretation of the topic. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline per Flo. Paul August ☎ 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. User demonstrates no good reason to lift the restrictions. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 23:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline appeal; it seems fair to read the restrictions imposed as including the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Decline appeal, per above. -- bainer ( talk) 06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request: The list of users in affected areas is too large to collect, list and notify conveniently. I will place notices of this request, so the community as a whole is aware, on the village pump, [87] administrators' noticeboard, [88] and fringe theory noticeboard. [89] If another editor believes there is a specific user or another on-wiki forum that should receive notice, they should feel free to drop a link to them.

Statement by Vassyana

I would like to request that ArbCom explicitly permit discretionary sanctions on all pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed, similar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here. That is only the recent threads, only from the AE noticeboard, only involving a very limited number of users involved in the broader dispute. I believe ArbCom explicitly endorsing discretionary sanctions would empower and embolden sysops and the community to resolve these long-standing issues, once and for all. Vassyana ( talk) 12:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about potential admin abuse

Regarding the concerns about potential admin abuse, I would expect that if ArbCom accepted this request that they would be open to reviewing complaints about related admin abuse. I believe this would increase the oversight and reduce the potential abuse of sysop discretion. Sysops would have to be accoutable for their actions.

I believe relying on more than common sense for the definition of "uninvolved" will only lead to wikilawyering. All of the proposed definitions I've seen essentially leave massive loopholes that anyone looking to game the system or skirt the rules could use. If there is a disagreement about whether an administrator is involved or not, a brief community discussion or appeal to ArbCom should suffice. I simply fail to see the point of creating a limited definition prone to gaming, which would require other admins and the community to employ their natural power of reason regardless. Vassyana ( talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Neal's oppose, I simply cannot understand that point of view, though I have tried. We permit administrators to impose full site blocks without an expiration date at their discretion. I fail to see how giving administrators lessor options (such as a topic ban instead of a full block) in long-disputed areas with persistant conduct problems would increase abuse potential. I should additionally note that we're discussing long-term problems, involving users who either know better by know or almost assuredly are never going to get it, not newbies who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Vassyana ( talk) 19:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment directly (if not you can move this to my section). I'm more concerned about abuse-through-misunderstanding rather than abuse-abuse. It's not always clear what's neutral, and the discretionary sanctions designed for Homeopathy and the Palestine-Israeli issue are designed for narrow subjects. A broader subject category, like all pseudoscience/alternative science, becomes muddled with lots of other issues (see my statement). The discretionary sanctions for the narrow topics say any percieved "[failure] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia", by any admin who feels strongly about it. There's lots of admins who feel strongly about their interpretation of NPOV, whether they're involved or not, and especially if they're involved in the broader discussions though not technically involved in the given page at the given time. The discretionary sanctions don't discriminate between bad editor practices like incivility, edit warring, etc. and good faith content disputes. Good faith content disputes can easily be seen as a "conduct problem", as that happens all the time. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but hopefully you can see where the concern comes from. On a side-note, if we already have tools available for getting problem editors off these articles, why aren't they already banned? -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about community discussion

Requesting or advocating that such discretionary empowerment be limited to consensus discussions is essentially the same as opposing this request. The community already has the power to impose bans and other sanctions via community discussion. I tend to think that over time, using such a method will only open up another battleground. Enforcement threads have already become another place to argue for the disputants in heated areas. I shudder to think what kind of response would be received after the first couple of sanction discussions make it "real" to such parties. (For an example, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive409#User:Mccready_-_endless.2C_disruptive.2C_repetitive_edit_warring.)

Regarding the concern about appeals, they should generally be appealable like any other admin action enforcing ArbCom sanctions: 1) Post to AN to ask other admins to review it. 2) Appeal to ArbCom. Excessive, repeated or otherwise disruptive series of appeals are not appeals at all; they are stumping and should be treated by another uninvolved administrator as disruptive. Vassyana ( talk) 13:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to concerns about scope

What if the scope were limited to areas and users that have severe long-running and/or perpetually recurring behavioral issues? I believe that would keep the scope from being too broad or limited. Vassyana ( talk) 18:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I heartily endorse this request for stronger measures re editors on both sides of this issue. More details to follow. I'll be on wiki break much of this weekend. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Both sides throw reports at WP:AE, trying to see what will stick. Many admins are wary to block because of fears another admin that is sympathetic to the blockee will unblock. The remedies in place are not working and something has to be done about it. There are also significant agreements among admins about what constitutes civility. This leads to users who have mastered the art of being borderline incivil and getting away with it for years. A firm policy about this sort of incivility being blockable, long term if necessary, need to be put in place. Copied from my comment at WP:AE archive 20..."Closing comment...enough already. This has descended into a finger-pointing complaint session by both sides. Before writing anything about someone else, ask "Would I want to be called that?". If not, don't write it. If it's borderline don't write it-this would stop all the attempts here where users throw up a report just to see what sticks; only truly legit reports would get filed if this were to occur. For example, maybe you wouldn't mind being called "braindead", but it would offend a lot of people. Also, you (you as in everyone, both sides) may consider your efforts on wiki non-POV, but others may not. If everyone involved here would take a step back, take a deep breath, and admit that the world of wiki is plenty big for everyone, things would be a lot calmer. These types of disputes start and go on and on when no one allows room for the other side. I see this not only in the pseudoscience area, but Mid-East, East Europe, Sri Lanka, etc disputes. On top of all this, there's about disagreement about the civility here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)"...Something has to be done here, this long term situation is highly divisive to the encyclopedic and takes way too admin effort to keep it within harmonic editing boundaries. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nealparr

Sure, if by "uninvolved administrator" you mean administrators not involved in "pseudoscience and alternative science topics, broadly construed" as a whole, or regularly, rather than a given page at a given time. After years of this madness, Wikipedia has collected some ban-happy admins with grudges and axes to grind. I'm sure many of them would love to ban their opponents on content disputes for up to a year. What sort of assurances can one like myself who edits paranormal-related articles as a hobby, not advocacy, be given that the new powers won't be abused? I don't edit war, am civil, but I've irritated admins in the past simply by disagreeing with them in content disputes, particularly that Wikipedia can also cover folklore neutrally without having a solely science point-of-view. Some admins adamantly reject that eventhough most agree that such a prospect is entirely neutral. AGF went out the window about two years ago on these topics, so frankly I'm a little concerned.

Paranormal topics aren't just pseudoscience (though they are, in part, that). There's also a historical perspective (eg. Remote viewing was studied by the CIA, UFOs were studied by the Air Force, Parapsychology was once accepted by the elite in society like William James, etc.). Presenting that historical information is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the sociological perspective (eg. 73 percent of the general US population holds some sort of paranormal belief [90]). Presenting information regarding just the "beliefs" is sometimes called POV pushing by admins. There's also the cultural, folklore perspective (eg. Spooklights are common in Southern US folklore). Talking about the folklore on those articles is sometimes called POV pushing by admins who say that the article should predominantly be about methane gases, etc. So, yes, there is a potential for abuse based solely on ideologies and old grudges. If the goal is to just to refresh the editor pool on these topics regardless of whether they're productive Wikipedians, that's fine, that goal will be served if no oversight is in place. But if the goal is to only target disruptive editors, there will need to be some sort of oversight.

I'd like to see what DGG mentioned below, a Topic Ban Noticeboard and some degree of practical consensus to prevent a single editor/admin, or ideological group of editors/admins, from going ban-happy. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

per Vassyana's replies on it's intended use. It seems fundamentally wrong that blocking or banning a user, a person, would have less outside discussion than what it takes to delete an article. This is essentially a "speedy delete" applied to a user, in spirit. It's always harder to correct a mistake than it is to prevent a mistake. Community discussion is essential when dealing with users who may not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, and determining what actually is wrong to begin with. That's what RfCs are all about. If the goal is to relieve the burden on the ArbCom, that can be done without dropping the discussions altogether. A very simple way to do that is to say "If after a RfC about applying sanctions on the user, allowing for community input and consensus-building, an uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict." Anything less is setting the bar for deleting a user from a topic lower than deleting a topic itself. The RfC also has the benefit of providing the banning/blocking admin with a summary of the issues surrounding the user so they could make an informed decision. The admin could, of course, in their discretion, interpret the RfC anyway they wish and impose their discretionary sanctions, but at least there'd be a discussion on the matter. -- Nealparr ^{( talk to me)} 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

Concur that this is a good idea, as an admin who is a regular at WP:AE. Editors active in this area should write their comments assuming that their own actions, and those of whom they agree with on content, will be reviewed and possibly sanctioned. I know of multiple editors in each faction who have effectively developed enemy lists of other editors they want banned, which is a bad sign for the ability of the editors in these areas to work together. We need to clear out those who can't or won't work with those who disagree with them so that a reasonable communal editing environment exists for current and future editors. GRBerry 15:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a strong definition of uninvolved/neutral is needed here. I commend the WP:ARBPIA model - has never been involved in a content dispute on any article in the pseudoscience/paranormal topic area with that topic area broadly construed. GRBerry 17:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We need more than that. We need a statement of neutrality toward the subjects themselves. I've seen mediators come in and say essentially "Well it's bunk so..." —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

Endorse per everything Nealparr said. I have very little confidence in the ability of admins 1) to be neutral if they are involved and 2) to get it if they are not. Indeed, I have seen editors like Zvika who did my interview struggle with the issues in these cases, and find it nearly impossible (many many hours of work to get up to date). I have seen obviously biased admins who are supposedly "outside" the debates come in and give sanctions. For example, some of those banning people relative to the 9/11 or Homeopathy issues. In other words, I have no fear of neutrality, but I have fear of hidden bias. If even Nealparr is scared, I certainly am, because I've been deionized all over the place irrespective of my actual edits, beliefs, ideas or intent.

I would like an advocate that I can agree is neutral, such as LaraLove or DGG or maybe Vassyana to review things before any action is take against me. Same for others.

I suggest that a committee of truly neutral subject matter experts, or simply editors truly neutral to the subjects be set up to deal with sourcing in paranormal areas. "Do you feel neutral toward issues of the paranormal?" Should be the question. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

I think the "endorsements" above show why it might not actually work--the disagreement between different arbitrators over the standards for these articles is fairly complete. Everyone things that they are neutral. I can predict what will happen, which is continual appeals from it, carried on in every forum possible, just as present. And i do not think the problem is that hopeless either, because I think the community is evolving standards. The problem is not individual topics--the problem is what degree of tolerance we should have for disruptive actions by good editors. Personally, I don't think they should get the essentially free ride they have at present.

If we do something of this sort, I would not leave it to individual admins. or editors. What I think we'd need is the equivalent of a topic ban noticeboard, and some degree of practical consensus would be required. I remember the fate of the community ban noticeboard and I'm a little skeptical. DGG ( talk) 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

I believe that, if implemented properly, could be an effective tool in finally ending the heated disagreements between the "anti-science" and "pro-science" camps. I do not believe it will lead to an end of hidden bias or blatant bias -- nor should it -- but that the implementation of a topic ban could finally kill the endless attacks against other editors and administrators, and could finally open the door for new editors, with fresh viewpoints and dialogues, to come in and edit.

I'd also like to echo GRBerry's comments above. There are multiple editors who have developed "watch lists" of other editors and administrators that they either want banned, or removed from various positions at Wikipedia. I will not go into specifics here regarding that, but it's a statement that's been made numerous times previously, here and elsewhere, and that it is leading to a serious divide in how, as editors and administrators, can resolve this long-standing conflict. I'd like to see a "topic ban noticeboard," but I am afraid that it would fall to either inactivity or hidden bias. seicer | talk | contribs 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I understand the intention, and fear the result. I think that in order to maintain standing as an encyclopedia, we need be more specific, and actually take a side in favor of facts. Discretionary sanctions should be made available, targeted towards editors that make edits stating or implying a factual basis for pseudoscientific or paranormal topics. If we did that for a while, the heat and rancor would die down, because people attempting to corrupt the encyclopedia would eventually be eliminated. Kww ( talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tom Butler

Any effort that would make it possible for administrators to more effectively arbitrate content disputes would help. I have been treated as poorly by some admins as I have by some rank and file editors, so I am not in favor of giving any individual admin more authority. Perhaps a cadre of three or five editors would provide protection to both sides.

Lets face it, an arbitration takes way too long, and as I can see, they have hardly any effect except to more clearly define the sides. If an admin blocks an appeal to authority, then the person making the appeal is discredited and the abusive editor becomes more bullet proof. In fact, Wikipedia is not able to manage editors who are willing to game the system.

I have only edited on a few paranormal articles so I may be unaware of some of the grievances. Nevertheless, from my viewpoint, it is unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to arbitrate content disputes without deciding on content--not taking sides, but saying what the article will include. I would be comfortable with a venue in which I could present my viewpoint to a panel, editors with a contrary viewpoint could do the same and the panel would decide the article based on their "fair and informed" decision of what was presented. Give each presenter 500 words and ten diffs. I think I could find a way to live with that and I am certainly willing to try. Tom Butler ( talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy, most of us "believers" just want to have the articles you are complaining about explain what the subject is said to be or thought to be without trying to say what you think it is or what you want the public to believe. I would be interested in how you would apply the treatment used for articles on religious beliefs to paranormal articles. For instance, I suspect that not even members of the WikiProject Rational Skepticism would attempt to make Wikipedia say that the Catholic Church is not real. Can you apply a similar standard to the EVP article without characterizing as real or not real? Can you just say what it is reported to be? Doing so would certainly stop a lot of the content disputes. Tom Butler ( talk) 21:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jossi

Agree in principle with Vassyana's proposal, with the caveats presented by DGG, that is to have a place in which we can assess some measure of administrators' consensus when applying broad restrictions such as topic bans or blocks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:B

This has too much potential for abuse the way it is worded. Some people consider anything they disagree with to be pseudoscience and would attempt to apply this far beyond its scope. (For example, most evangelical Christians believe in something other than atheistic evolution, therefore someone who edits Bobby Bowden is editing an article on pseudoscience, right?) It needs to be spelled out what this applies to - theories of origin, alternative medicine, paranormal, etc. -- B ( talk) 17:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Baegis

I'm going to have to agree with B on this one. There are some areas which qualify as pseudoscience but which do not need this sort of protection. The ID related articles are stable for the most part, because there are a great number of fine editors who are very active on those pages. They are occasionally disrupted, but not nearly enough for the scope of this proposal to be anything more than a hindrance. The areas that this will apply to need to be better spelled out. There are probably thousands of articles that fall within the pseudoscience area, especially if broadly defined. And if BLP's are included in that, ie the ones of proponents of pseudoscience, there are an even greater number of articles. I would wager that it is pretty clear the the biggest problems lie in the CAM area and the paranormal areas. Focusing on the most problematic areas is a better idea than a big sweeping probation. Baegis ( talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

There is a long-standing issue with pseudoscience, fringe and paranormal articles. The sources which discuss these subjects are typically either wholly uncritical, or dedicated sceptics. The fact that the mainstream science community does not accept paranormal claims is hard to source, because scientists do not publish papers saying that hokum is hokum. The result is a series of in-universe articles on fictional topics. Added to that, we have believers in these paranormal ideas whose primary function on Wikipedia is to attempt to have them documented as reality, not a fringe belief system.

I do believe we can make this work by applying the same methods as are applied in articles on religious belief systems. The article on Saint Alban documents the verifiable facts which are undisputed, being the identity and martyrdom, documented in local Roman records; discusses the mythology of the Holy Well; and discusses the cult of Alban. I think we can document the paranormal belief system in the same way, but we have too many people asserting that it is real. Guy ( Help!) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Antelan

My own personal sentiment is that the current options for enforcement have not yet been applied in a stringent way, and should not be broadened until they have been fully tested. That said, I share Vassayana's frustration, and would hope that this will serve to push administrators to use the tools that they have been given. Antelan ^talk 17:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter

Given the occasionally contentious nature of the discussions regarding this subject, perhaps it might be possible for the ArbCom to help in the selection of a group of editors who would be able to function in much the same way as the recently created cultural disputes group is supposed to. It might also be useful for some of the religion and pseudoscience content as well, given the often disparate opinions there. Might it be possible to expand the remit of the existing cultural disputes group, and possibly its membership, to include these other matters as well, or alterntely create similar groups for these matters? John Carter ( talk) 01:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Filll

Although I understand the desire to come up with a quick fix or a magic bullet here, I do not think that more enforcement is the answer. I have observed how well more enforcement and greater empowerment of admins worked at homeopathy and related articles, and I have to admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. I have also encountered a fair number of administrators who are FRINGE proponents or antiscience themselves, so just giving all administrators more power is not a very well-reasoned response. I would like to see a more measured and careful approach for dealing with this kind of problem, such as those potential options being considered at the discussion lead by User:Raul654 at [91].-- Filll ( talk) 20:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

The Homeopathy discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

The following remedy is added to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

Regards, Daniel ( talk) 01:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Messedrocker

Do we seriously need a horse and pony show over this? The fact of the matter is, the encyclopedia comes first. In an encyclopedia, established facts backed up by evidence comes first. Scientific academia is making a more significant effort than the alternative to adhere to the scientific method and prove their stuff (through a rigorous review by envious researchers who want to do no more than to destroy other researchers). Alternative thought still has a place in articles, but while it still is alternative, then it should be regarded as such. Violations of the principle of undue weight should be treated with editorial treatment so that due weight is restored. People should be blocked from editing articles when their edits are more trouble than it's worth. MessedRocker ( talk) 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• We are currently looking into some modifications to the discretionary sanction ruling as part of the Homeopathy case; while I'm open to imposing them here, I'd prefer to avoid doing so until we decide on the better wording there. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Per Kirill. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of blocks and bans.

Other provisions

This provision does not affect any existing provisions of the case.

There are 12 active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

Support:

1. Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in Homeopathy. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Using the preferred wording. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
3. As above; the clearest wording for this type of remedy. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 08:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Again, yes. James F. (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. -- bainer ( talk) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. I am not yet convinced of the wisdom of these sanctions in this context. Paul August ☎ 16:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Moreschi ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Matthead ( talk · contribs)

Statement by Moreschi

As I think WP:AE currently shows nicely, the Eastern Europe flamewars cannot be dealt with by the current provisions of the Digwuren case. At any rate, I cannot cope, and I don't think anyone else can either. Isolating civility in the way the case does has simply encouraged users to bait other users in an effort to get their opponents put on civility supervision and blocked. We need discretionary sanctions WP:ARBMAC style to counter this, though with a good definition of the area of conflict (I would suggest, at the least, that it covers Polish-German disputes, in addition to Polish-Russian and articles relating to the Baltic states and Ukraine). Best, Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases. The problem goes back years, and is easily comparable to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, Balkans, or India-Pakistan. At the moment a whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked. The current Digwuren case does not allow for this to happen. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re Daniel: better definition of the area of conflict needed, I'm afraid. Just "Eastern Europe" is too vague. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 22:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" is too vague. As Eastern Europe makes clear, the term "Eastern Europe" is something rather ambiguous and definitions differ.

To Martintg: it's not bloody misanthropy. Chimpanzees are welcome to edit Wikipedia provided they grok the principles of neutrality, objectivity, and verifiability. If people can't manage this, then they have no place here, no matter if they offer an ethnically diverse viewpoint from Alpha Centauri. Good articles are not written by competing teams of POV-pushers. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 21:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by recent edit-war patterns, it's articles relating to the conflicts between Russia, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Romania, and Moldova that are most in need of this. I suggest this as the "area of conflict" for now. AFAIK Baltic-Russian articles have gone quiet since the Digwuren case, but this may flare up again, so we should keep the option open of extending the area of conflict to include these states, as well as any others - such as Czech Republic and Slovakia - that may need it in future. Moreschi ( talk) ( debate) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Matthead

I had opened at case at WP:AE, after which User:Molobo opened two against me 1st (closed) and 2nd, trying to take advantage that I had been added quickly to the Digwuren list shortly after it was opened, and got immediately blocked, while he and well known other editors have, well, since been overlooked somehow? I perceive the composition of the list as lopsided and doubt that Eastern Europe flamewars are conducted one way. Wikipedia has 5 pillars, of which "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" are the first two, and arguably the most important ones, compared to "Wikipedia has a code of conduct" as fourth. Thus, as we try to write an encyclopedia, I think it is necessary that much more attention is given to the content that editors add or remove, rather than to civility or the lack thereof, or the skill with which some editors can provoke uncivil responses while getting judged civil themselves. For example, Molobo repeatedly denied that there was a by-election to the Polish parliament in 1920 [92] [93] [94] [95] with support by another well known user [96] [97], calling it a German hoax also on talk, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge that after the Versailles Treaty made Soldau/Dzialdowo Polish, a by-election was held, which apparently is also stated on pl-wiki (which he repeatedly rejects, eg. with no source in Polish wikipedia and I can just as well edit that article that Martians invaded Działdowo in 1920. They were no elections in 1920 in Poland to Sejm. Case closed.). If I had not fixed it, the misinformation "A German author claims that after the town was ceded to Poland a large part of German inhabitants left the area but the candidate of the German Party, Ernst Barczewski, was elected to the Sejm with 74,6 % of votes in 1920, although no Sejm elections took place at the time" would probably still remain. Also, on Talk:Karkonosze, he repeatedly made false claims, denying that both Encyclopedia Britannica and Opera Corcontica use Giant Mountains rather than Karkonosze. In both cases, he Refused to 'get the point' despite other editors providing evidence that the was wrong, very wrong. Is such behavior acceptable? Molobo almost got permabanned two years ago. He returned after his one year block, and seemingly was allowed to do as he pleases since. --  Matthead   Discuß   02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Piotrus' statement: it was Piotrus who made the most effective use of the new Digwuren case as soon as October 2007. It was him who had produced (actively?) "a big list" of (not so clear) diffs collected until December to take advantage of the restrictions, and managed to have Dr. Dan listed as the very first extension to the list, with Dr. Dan inflaming Eastern European topics. Soon, he got me, too, with Another Eastern European spat (originally titled Another Eastern European flamer, against which Dr.Dan protested). On the other hand, it indeed "is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list" when he defends him, like in Darwinek's case. And as Piotrus and others know very well, it is hardly a coincidence that edits "will be reverted by more numerous" users who are listening to Gadu Gadu instant messenger. One of the biggest weaknesses of Wikipedia policies is that they treat editors as isolated individuals, especially in 3RR cases, while highly questionable forms of cooperations are overlooked, ignored, or denied. --  Matthead   Discuß   09:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Relata refero

There is absolutely no doubt that this is required. My involvement in EE issues is limited to the Worst Article On Wikipedia and on responding to various RfCs and posts on noticeboards - perhaps half a dozen articles altogether. It would be more except for the (a) blatant wikilawyering and misrepresentation of sources that happens as a matter of course and (b) outright baiting and misapplication of civility. I'm not one of those who believes that civility is pointless when dealing with POV-pushers, but what we have in these articles is that any statement of fact - "that source is obviously irrelevant" - is met with head-shaking reminders to be civil in the hope that some form ArbCom-mandated sanction will be required.

As a general rule, any section of the 'pedia permanently plagued with clashing historical narratives requires our most stringent controls. These are more difficult to administer and keep clean, because of the free availability and difficulty in recognising dubious sourcing, than the pseudoscience/scientific consensus articles that people have wailing conniptions about all over the noticeboards. Not to mention there are fewer people able and willing to keep an eye on it, and its much tougher to recognise POV-pushing....

If ArbCom suggests that I present a few diffs of the sort of occasion where (a) civility restrictions have led to baiting and (b) discretionary sanctions would have been helpful - just from my own experience - I am willing to. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 06:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I endorses this request. Many of the long-term problematic areas of wiki need strong and flexible remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

"Blocks of up to one year" on discretion of a single uninvolved administrator... Such drastic measured could only be used for users with long blocking history (say 6+ blocks). Besides, the area of conflict should be clearly defined. I asked previously if any Russia-related subjects belong to Digwuren case, but there was no answer. I trust Moreschi judgment, but we need some safeguards if this is adopted as a general policy. Biophys ( talk) 17:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, this might be a good idea if the area is clearly defined (e.g. Russia-Ukrainian conflict). But the definition of "uninvolved administrator" is terrible. There are many highly opinionated administrators who edit in the area. They will simply block all others. An "uninvolved administrator" should be someone who never edited in the area of conflict! Biophys ( talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So far, the discretionary sanctions in the Digwurien ruling only drive away several good editors like Turgidson, but they did not really resolve anything (as Moreschi said). However, this amended ruling will only make things worse unless you can deal with nationalist administrators who edit in the area of conflict. For example, this administrator threatened me with block while making himself his fourth revert in 24 hours here. If this ruling was already accepted, he or his allies would simply block me or anyone else for a year, and this is it. Giving so much power to Moreschi is fine. But giving so much power to nationalist administrators is not a good idea. That is why I insisted on a different definition of "uninvolved administrator". Biophys ( talk) 12:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Martintg

There is no justification to extend discretionary sanctions to other topic areas such as the Polish/Russian articles, Ukraine or particularly the Baltic states. An examination of WP:ANI and other boards will reveal that these areas are relatively harmonious, and the existing mechanisms such as 3RR are working well.

A similar motion to impose discretionary sanctions across all of Easter Europe, on the back of a single 3RR violation in that case, was attempted back in February, but was archived due to lack of interest and some important questions of scope remaining unanswered [98]

So what has happened since February? A scan through the WP:AE archives reveals only a small number of cases reported to the AE board have anything actually to do with Eastern Europe. Out of 126 cases since February, only 4 are EE related, particularly Poland, and of those 4, 3 are concerned with Matthead [99], [100], [101]

Experience has shown that in the case of EE, disruption is usually caused by one or two individuals, and if they are banned/blocked harmony quickly returns. This is clearly a case concerning the behaviour of an individual and has no relevance to any other topic areas like Ukraine, Poland/Russia or the Baltic States. Massive intervention that risks totally chilling a broad subject area is not required, particularly when precise targeted action is more than sufficient. Martintg ( talk) 21:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alex Bakharev contends the current sanction encourages editors to "bait" other parties into civility violations. If this is the case, then discretionary sanctions will be an even bigger encouragement to bait editors into violation, since it only requires the discretion of a single uninvolved admin and the heavy threat of desysoping other admins who may overturn a sanction. A very profitable outcome to any baiter compared with the current situation. Arguing for additional sanctions across all Eastern European articles because of a dispute about some German/Polish topic is akin to arguing for discretionary sanctions across all North American related articles because of disruption in some US related article like 9/11. I'm sure those editing Canadian or Mexican topics would not be happy about that prospect. Martintg ( talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at User:Moreschi/The Plague/Useful links for a list of EE-related ArbCom cases, we see that there were 6 cases in 2007 ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu doesn't count, as discussed here), but zero in the first half of 2008. This is a testament to the improvement that has been made since 2007, and thus no comparison to other problematic areas such as Arab-Israeli, for example, which has had already 2 Arbcom cases in 2008 so far. If Moreschi believes there are a "whole pile of revert-warriors need to be revert-paroled, some incorrigible trolls topic-banned, and some baiters blocked", he should name them here, as I know of none in the Baltic states topic area that requires the imposition of addtitional discretionary sanctions. I'm not aware of issues in the areas either, e.g. like Ukraine, certainly nothing serious enough to warrant reporting to ANI or other boards. Martintg ( talk) 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify, the other person banned in this case, Petri Krohn, is actually Finnish, not Russian. The Digwuren conflict at its core was primarily between an Estonian and a Finn, were the Finn recruited some Russian editors to his cause. (Krohn is even now continuing his battle off-wiki in the Estonian press with his opinion piece " Estonia is a fascist apartheid state"). It is unfortunate that the remedies in the Digwuren case were extended to broadly cover Eastern Europe, and is now being exploited by Moreschi to further his agenda as expressed in his essay " The Plague". And it is a pity that some ArbCom members have apparently bought into it rather than look at the facts on the ground. Regardless of one's opinion of Sarah777, her rebuttal of Morsechi's thesis in her lampooning essay " The Real Plague" raises some valid issues with Moreschi's views on ethnic diversity of viewpoints in Wikipedia. We all want to build an encyclopedia without drama, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and applying discretionary sanctions aimed at particular national groupings is a step in the wrong direction. Martintg ( talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• To Moreschi: assigning the bad behaviour of individuals to national groups, then characterising it as a "plague", is not misanthropic? I sympathize fully with what admins like yourself are up against, particularly when Irpen wades in and ratchets up the drama in his usual style in support of his compatriots, right or wrong. If only Kirill had at the very least widened the definition of involved admin and narrowed the scope to specific topic areas, like Russia, I could support this motion, but as it stands, I can not. The problem with this approach is that mere assumed membership of a group is then sufficient to cast suspicion. Institutionalize this approach by adopting discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe and the result will be disastrously clear. Martintg ( talk) 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Biophys is right, if this remedy is adopted, the definition of involved admin needs to be expanded, being an admin doesn't magically make one forget their national origin or the desire to defend their view. Even Kirill admitted to me his background made him sensitive, which was a surprise to me since I originally assumed he was American born. Not an issue for me, ofcourse, but I do wonder if this sensitivity has led to the introduction of sanctions that are more draconian and wider in scope than they really need to be. Martintg ( talk) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus

For the most part I agree with Marting. I don't think that CE/EE area is much more inflamed then many others; we just have a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users. We have weeks of quiet punctuated by an occasional week when one of them "wakes up" and disrupts an article or two, then goes away after he learns again that such disruption will be reverted by more numerous, neutral editors. That said, it is a fact that such storms are stressful and may result in a good editor taking a long wikibreak or even permanently leaving, fed up with flaming and harassment. It is very, very difficult to get a user on the Digwuren's warning list and later, blocked - even if one produces a big list of very clear diffs you get the usual "random admin decision", usually erring on the case of 'let's give him another chance' or 'he was warned few month ago and inactive recently, so let's just warn him again'. And certainly, other admins may be to timid or afraid to apply the remedy to experienced editors who have proven their skills with wikilawyering. Thus I do think that the Digwuren sanction ended up being relatively pointless. Just as before, what we need are a few blocks (or topical ban - see who creates little to no content but flames and revert wars) - and the problem would cease to exist. Perhaps some conclusions from this debate may prove useful in dealing with this problem once and for all.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: I support Moreschi's idea of adding WP:ARBMAC-like solutions to Digwuren's case. This would vastly improve their effectiveness.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev ( talk)

I agree with Moreschi, the Digwuren sanction encourage editors to bite other parties into the civilty violations and does not help to solve the underlying problem that many editors consider Eastern European articles as battleground and soapbox instead and insert deliberately inflammatory edits to the articles instead of striving to present some balanced view points Alex Bakharev ( talk) 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

The Homeopathy discretionary sanctions have passed (by virtue of having six support and one abstention, which reduces the majority to six), and the case is moving towards being closed. Per Kirill below, who said that the Committee was waiting to see which version of discretionary sanctions was prefered, I think the Committee has decided to this effect (the other discretionary sanctions proposal in that case only recieved one support, so the disparity is evident).

Therefore I propose the following motion:

--- START PROPOSED MOTION ---

Remedy 11, "General restriction" is superceded by the following remedy:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

--- END PROPOSED MOTION ---

Regards, Daniel ( talk) 01:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ChrisO

This might be too radical a suggestion, I know, but might it be possible to adapt something like WP:ARBMAC to provide set of tools that could be applied generically, without having to trigger a full-scale arbitration to achieve that end? I don't think it would be appropriate to allow an individual arbitrator to impose such a regime by him- or herself, but perhaps it could be triggered if there was a consensus among uninvolved admins that there was a problem requiring the application of the ARBMAC tools. -- ChrisO ( talk) 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ghirla

Daniel's motion is far too wide in scope. I'm afraid it will have the effect of shifting the power from ArbCom to the legions of IRC-recruited admins, with bans randomly flying like rifle shots in passing. This is based on a flawed idea of justice. I don't agree with Piotrus that the EE field is plagued by "a few persistent trolls and borderline disruptive users". Those are not a problem that requires ArbCom's involvement. It is plagued by a few long-standing and dedicated editors whose sole aim is to glorify their country and to skew the perspective with their tendentious editing. For a start I'd be for putting Piotrus under editing restrictions, for it would go a longer way toward lightening up the atmosphere than any of the proposed motions. Since I had not been editing English Wikipedia between November and June (apart from inserting interwiki links to my articles in Russian Wikipedia), nobody can call me the mastermind of all the problems, as Piotrus had insinuated in the previous cases. If nothing has changed for the better, what was the purpose of ArbCom's ousting me out of English Wikipedia during the Digwuren case? That screw-up highlighted ArbCom's incompetence and inefficiency, and the proposed motion will have a similar effect. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed wording from biophys

Per this diff, Biophys suggests the following change to the proposed discretionary sanctions. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have recused myself once and I believe that at least I can say that this area needs more strict measures. I also agree with user:Biophys though the safeguards come usually with the pack. What Moreschi is asking for is the green light from the ArbCom. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It must be reminded that this is not a place for discussions as it is mentioned on top of this page. It doesn't help a lot. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• My response here is the same one that I made in regards to the identical request in the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case below: I'll be happy to move for discretionary sanctions here once the Homeopathy case closes and we know which version of the sanctions is preferred. Kirill ^{( prof)} 00:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans.

Other provisions

This provision supersedes the "General restriction" remedy, but does not affect any other provisions of the case, or any sanctions already imposed under the "General restriction" remedy.

There are 11 active arbitrators (excluding one who has abstained), so six votes are a majority.

Support:

1. Proposed as promised; wording is taken from the (currently) passing version in Homeopathy. Kirill ^{( prof)} 01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Using the preferred wording. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
3. This wording seems to work better and give more clarity to all concerned. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 08:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Long overdue. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes, as previously discussed. James F. (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 01:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I preferred the prior, wider definition of involvement. -- bainer ( talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Paul August ☎ 17:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)