Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 28 March 2008

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• WP:RFAR
• WP:A/R
• WP:ARB/R
• WP:ARBREQ

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

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

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Current requests

Episode images

Initiated by —TreasuryTag—t—c at 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Majorly (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Several others who participated in the WP:FUR, who can add themselves as they see fit

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the reques

• Matthew
• Majorly

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Fair Use review
• Otherwise, this is an argument that has happened many times before, and will doubtless happen many times again.

Statement by TreasuryTag

This is a fairly complex case with several different strands...

• My situation - after an early history of blocks for edit-warring (3RR) and disruption, I was expertly mentored by an admin for 3 months and declared "clean" on February 28th. I had hopes of becoming an admin one day; I imagine that my stress over what happened around this case may have dashed those hopes.
• NFCC needs clarification - the issue began when Matthew (talk · contribs) deleted what he described as a "decorative fair use image".

• A consensus of regulars on the talkpage quickly developed amongst four users, one myself, one an admin, that a different image was appropriate.
• Matthew continued to delete the image, without engaging in helpful discussion , , , . All these reversions had particularly irritating, smug, copy-and-paste edit summaries that did not reflect the discussion on talkpage.
• The edit-warring was excused by Matthew as protected under the 3RR ("clear removal of copyright material"). He refused to accept that the case wasn't clear, despite numerous users disputing it.
• The committee really needs to rule on this issue once and for all. My suggestion is, that talkpage consensus must be developed to say that an image comes as close to meeting the NFCC as any image from that episode could; no producer would ever sue us and the episode articles look so much better with images.

• Discussion - the users deleting the image seem to have a real problem with engaging in effective discussion. Matthew continually edit-warred over the image's placement while discussion was continuing. He did this with non-descriptive edit-summaries which I have to say, I found indescribably irritating. I suspect this was deliberate.

• A consensus that the image failed NFCC (which is absurd, since the purpose of NFCC is presumably to prevent copyright litigation, and a pleasant image never would!), developed only after the edit-war.
• One user said that, "the vote is whether an image can be used, when it is not critical for understanding, and it is not." This is a disgusting abuse of the fact that different people have different PsOV. People cannot pretend that this is an absolutely obvious and clear-cut issue and that several other users are automatically and absolutely wrong... it's grossly offensive. Refusing to accept that the other side has brains too. Another person said, "I find it somewhat worrying that so many editors, some experienced, can be reading such a clear policy so wrongly." I am offended by this also. It's obviously not clear.

• {{newepisode}} - this is a template which I made in response to a consensus of myself, an admin, and one other user at WT:WHO. There was nobody against the proposal at the time.

• Matthew claimed that "Nobody has even supported that suggestion", despite being given a link to this page. He therefore lied.
• Other users pointed out that consensus cannot override policy; we need, therefore, to be clear about which policies constitute bright-line rules.

• Matthew's conduct - it's not been very good. Edit-warring, claiming that a balance of 4-1 doesn't exist as consensus, claiming that the balance of 4-1 makes it clear that the 1 is right.

• His edit summaries are simply designed to irritate; saying the same thing each time without reflecting the discussion.
• He needs to be warned about civility and related communication-policies.

• Majorly's conduct - demonstrated a major (!) conflict of interest by making the decision to not block Matthew for 3RR, and for removing my rollback.

• While I appreciate that there was, perhaps, a need for it to be removed, several people pointed out on ANI that Majorly's "close" relationship with Matthew should have precluded his acting in a case where Matthew is involved.
• Majorly also removed the rollback of Lerdthenerd (talk · contribs), where the same COI applied.
• I suggest that Majorly is severely warned about COI.

• Why should the committee take this case? It's an issue that's caused a lot of conflict in the past; it's going to cause a lot more.

• Furthermore, it would be a pity for episode articles to go without pretty picture un-necessarily.
• Finally, there are some behavioural issues that clearly need dealing with.

• Proposed temporary injunction - "no images may be added, removed, changed or deleted from episode, character or general fiction articles until further notices; neither may the images be deleted."

Statement by Matthew

This request is obviously premature/frivolous. I'm not actually sure what the above user is wanting the arbitration committee to arbitrate. Could it be the disagreement with the non-free content policy? Perhaps his misunderstanding of what a consensus is? I've no idea, and I'm not interested. Matthew (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusingly the above user - though filing this case - is removing decorative images. Maybe he's just making a point though. Matthew (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Majorly

As per Matthew. I also think TreasuryTag needs to learn about our non free content policy. Just reading "it would be a pity for episode articles to go without pretty picture un-necessarily" shows me his lack of knowledge in this area. As for COI, I never edit in this topic area - ever. Nor do I work with images. I think that this request is too premature and should be speedily declined. Majorly (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 4}

Statement by {Party 5}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

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

• Comment: Waiting for further input before voting on acceptance, but I wanted to note that the proposed form of temporary injunction is certainly overbroad and could not be adopted in that form. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Sexist Editing in Child Psychology

KingsleyMiller (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC) Initiated by KingsleyMiller at 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs), filing party
• Jean_Mercer (talk · contribs)
• Fainites (talk · contribs)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• none

Statement by KingsleyMiller

I have tried to edit or create pages regarding Child Psychology on John Bowlby, Maternal Deprivation and Professor Sir Michael Rutter. I have found the contents of these pages vandalized by the other parties. Despite attempts to discuss these pages the other parties have consistently shown 'bad faith'. For example editing under a false title, making false claims for the contents, making false claims regarding myself. An example of editing in 'bad faith' is at the bottom of the page on Rutter which has been changed to read 'Significant developments in Attachment Theory'. This is incorrect and this change is vexatious. I have subsequently also been contacted off forum to be told there is a Misplaced Pages 'administrator' who is sympathetic to their behaviour. There are glaring problems with the pages on Child Psychology which suggest there is a systemic problem.

Statement by Jean Mercer

Aside from the simple fact that I'm female, I'm not sure what is sexist about my edits. Apparently Kingsley Miller and I disagree about the history and present status of the maternal deprivation concept. I've suggested that we find some way in which this disagreement can be presented, if indeed it represents a controversy among people interested in this topic. However, in my opinion it is not correct to claim that the study of maternal deprivation is identical with attachment theory. As i pointed out on Kingsley Miller's talk page, there are folkways and legal assumptions associated with the idea of maternal deprivation. These could be discussed in the MD article.

However, if the intended topic of the article is actually bias in child custody decisions, this should be clearly stated, or such an article should be presented, and the MD article folded into Attachment Theory.Jean Mercer (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fainites

Do you want a statement from me given the rejects below?

In response to the question below about alternative methods of WP:DR, no WP type requests have been made. I have given the links to this policy to KingsleyMiller. He made a complaint to User:Thatcher131 here and a request for assistance to User:Doug here. User:LunaSantin was briefly involved here when Kip forgot to sign himself in, put some personal abuse on several pages and the IP number got blocked here . I'm not aware of any other outside involvement.

Accusations of bad faith ('vested interes't and 'mountebank') have also been made against a newbie called User:Mrvain68 who disagreed with Kip on the talkpage of Attachment in children and Attachment measures about recent research. The arguments have also spread over the talkpages of Maternal deprivation and John Bowlby.

Despite being mildy put out at the refusal to discuss content on the talkpage and the spamming of accusations of bad faith over a range of talkpages I have not sought assistance myself because there has been no actual edit war on the article pages themselves and because KingsleyMiller has for weeks been stating he is intending to pursue a 'formal complaint' against me (and JeanMercer unless she gives up editing these pages ).

I am happy to discuss content on the talkpages or file RfC or go for mediation. However, on the latter, I understand it requires an assumption of good faith on the part of participants. On an RfC, its rare to get any takers on more obscure psychology topics. The Psychology Project is pretty much moribund. Psychology is an unloved area on Wiki.

I note that today however, Kip has made extensive edits to John Bowlby that are extremely POV and include the wholesale removal of sourced information so it doesn't look like this problem is going away and at the moment it appears unlikely Kip will be prepared to take part in good faith content discussions on talkpages given his views on the bad faith of anybody who disagrees with him. Fainites 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I also suspect that the person who contacted Kip 'off forum' is HeadleyDown again as part of his ongoing vendetta, on and off Wiki, against editors who have opposed him, which includes both myself and FT2. It is likely he made similar attempts to use other users in this way during the DPeterson/Attachment therapy arbitration. Fainites 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled by the allegations of 'sexist views'. I've been trying to point out that attachment theory does not say there is any difference re attachment between males and females. I would have thought a Fathers Rights campaigner like Kip would want this made clear given how prevalent the use of attachment theory is in general practice. Fainites 20:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This does make it seem that any method of DR that requires a modicum of WP:AGF on both sides is increasingly unlikely. Fainites 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/0)

• Reject. This is a dispute over the content of the pages, and despite extensive searching, the only violations of policy I can find is KingsleyMiller's belief that Fainites is acting in bad faith which is not clearly demonstrated. There does not seem to have been any administrative action taken in the pages concerned, and being an administrator grants no privilege whatsoever in editing. I would advise KingsleyMiller that, since the subject of child developmental psychology is one where there is considerable academic and popular debate characterised by many different views. It should not be a surprise to find that those different views have their supporters among wikipedia editors, and the challenge to all is to describe the debate in such a way as to encompass all views while endorsing none of them. This is inevitably frustrating to an expert who has a great deal of knowledge in their field but the way to proceed is by rigorously citing reliable sources for the opinions we describe, and debating the issues with other editors. Can I ask, has there been a request for comment from other users? Has WikiProject Psychology been asked to assist? These methods could help you. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reject, per Sam. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Recuse. I was a participant in the case last summer on Attachment Therapy and presented much of the evidence to back the view by Fainites and Jean Mercer that certain other editors were sock-puppets run by an edit warrior. Whilst this involved a completely different set of issues and an edit warrior (since community banned), and I did not edit that article area myself, I would not wish to formally arbitrate on a case where I have worked closely with the named parties, on the same topic area, in my pre-arbcom work. FT2  11:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. Kirill 19:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Decline at this time per comments above. Note that this does not mean that there are no issues that should be addressed. Please follow the suggestions offered by Sam Blacketer or other means of dispute resolution to resolve any content issues that exist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

• ]

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Request for clarification : Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC

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

• Carcharoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (self-added)
• All of the current arbitration committee that were active and recused on this case (will notify separately)

Statement by Carcharoth

Could the arbitration committee please clarify what has or has not resulted from the final principle and the associated remedy in the IRC case, namely: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC#Policy issues surrounding IRC and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC#IRC, and what is planned for the future, if anything. The principle in full is:

"The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case. passed 7-1 at 03:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

The remedy in full is:

"Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee. passed 9-0 with 1 abstention at 03:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)"

Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Updated 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite

I can state that several other channel ops and I have been working hard to take the communities views in hand when we have been discussing how to handle future behavioural issues in the channel. The first thing we've done is created guidlines for the channel which all users of the channel are aware of. These can be found here. The problems highlighted in the IRC case are mainly because members of the channel didn't understand what was expected of them and the channel operators didn't really know their role in stopping behavioural problems. The operators have now decided to take a more proactive role in the enforcement of channel standards, and all users are aware that if they start discussing people behind their backs, start being offensive or anything else which could be seen from the outside as unacceptable, they'll have their access removed. Obviously sometimes a warning may suffice, but in serious incidents, we'll remove on sight.

What we've also done is made the access list public, so any IRC user can see exactly who has access to the channel. On wiki, we've created User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info) so that everyone is aware exactly who has access to the channel, and who the channel operators are. If there's a concern with someones conduct, then anyone is welcome to contact one of the ops and it will be taken extremely seriously and we'll of course keep you informed of what is happening. At present, we're currently debating the role of non administrators in the channel and whether or not they should keep their access. We've had no consensus either way up to this point, but we'll keep on going highlighting both the benefits and disadvantages.

The channel has moved on a lot since the case and although there hasn't been any direction from ArbCom, the internal running and operation has taken a lot from the case and everything is now much clearer regarding expected standards and routes for ops to take if there are problems. If people have concerns, just contact one of us. I'm sure the arbitration committee would also be willing to hear of problems if the ops haven't dealt with it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Related suggestion from Wetman

If the access list has been made public, can Ryan Postlethwaite ensure that it is entered in some acceptable fashion at Misplaced Pages:IRC channels, so that more ordinary Wikipedians like myself could actually access it?--Wetman (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a new proposed page. Please see User:Ryan Postlethwaite/IRC. This would replace the old admins channel wikipedia space page so it has to go through DRV which can be found at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 26#Misplaced Pages:IRC channels/wikipedia-en-admins. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I linked the list at WP:IRC in the header of the WEA section, some weeks ago. FT2  11:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Related suggestion from Lawrence Cohen

Can we get this list of users updated to seperate out admins from non-admins, with a direct 1:1 relationship shown what IRC handle connects with what English Misplaced Pages username? Lawrence § t/e 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done this at User:Cbrown1023/Guidelines (user info). I linked the ones I knew of the top of my head and non-admins are in bold. John Reaves 07:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Related query by Bishonen

"Just contact one of us"..? Er, how? Why are people expected to know the way to CBrowns userspace if they have been treated badly on the channel? Why isn't there a public board in Misplaced Pages space (linked to from WP:AN and similar) where complaints can be dealt with by senior ops? Bishonen | talk 17:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC).

It should be noted that the anchored redirect WP:WEA broke when the header it redirected to was changed with this edit on 6 March. I've just fixed it, so now people can go straight to the big red box with the link to the guidelines when they click on WP:WEA. From there, they should be able to find someone to complain to. This is a work in progress, and I'm sure suggestions you make will be discussed. Any ideas for a suitable on-wiki talk page to discuss things? Carcharoth (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me commenting here Bish, please feel fee to move it if you want. I agree that CBrowns userspace isn't ideal, but people didn't like the fact that we had a whole wiki-space page dedicated to #wikipedia-en-admins. I personally wouldn't mind it being in a more accessible location and it would be a good idea to link it more widely so that people are clear where and who to go to and the expected conduct of the users in the channel. I'm not sure a public board is a great idea for this, if there are problems, it would most likely involve passing logs to channel operators, or the channel operators getting evidence from logs which shouldn't be posted on-wiki. I personally don't have a problem with people coming to my talk page with their concerns and I'll communicate with them on wiki regarding the steps that I'm taking to resolve them - I just don't think a dedicated noticeboard is such a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment on that - that was taken care of at the same time, earlier this month. I linked the entire channel guidelines (including where to seek help and who are the channel operators) from WP:IRC#wikipedia-en-admins specifically to ensure that question had an answer, and those needing to know how to find the guidelines and help, could know.

I also added as a second measure, also earlier this month, a section to WP:IRC covering #Problems and help, and to be sure that was visible relinked it as well from near the top of the page too. It gives full details on how to seek help if there is a problem on an IRC channel. The pages they link to contain full details of every person in any kind of channel op role, on en-admins and more generally, for much of English Misplaced Pages IRC. FT2  18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Given that the remedy the committee passed was that the committee would address this issue, the activity Ryan discusses, while likely meritorious, does not actually fulfill the remedy. Is there a status update as to the committee's activity? GRBerry 17:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

First, I think this space should probably be reserved to ask the committee for an update on their views of IRC governance etc., and discussion of Bishonen's excellent question should be moved elsewhere (including my comments below, should someone be so bold as to start such a discussion).

I think a noticeboard for IRC chanops would be an excellent idea. Now, this gets a bit esoteric and lawyerish, but it seems to be the current situation that IRC is recognized as an independent creature, with different rules of conduct and methods of dispute resolution, and that Misplaced Pages has no authority to mandate any particular channel behavior or dispute resolution process. However, that does not mean that the chanops could not choose for their own convenience to host a noticeboard on Misplaced Pages. I think a noticeboard is an excellent idea because it will allow issues to be discussed by more than just the ops who happen to be online at a given moment, and it will have archives, including a record of when and why a user was added or removed from the channel that IRC itself does not provide. There already seems to be a sort of noticeboard at User talk:Cbrown1023/Guidelines.

However, hosting the noticeboard and associated policies/contact lists/dispute resolution processes in Misplaced Pages space presents the same problem it did before; it suggests that anyone can edit it, when in fact only the participants in IRC have a say and only the chanops (appear to) have the final say. So it may be necessary either to host the pages in project space but grant them an exemption from "everyone can edit" or to keep them in user space but raise their profile through linkage or even transclusion. Thatcher 18:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, IRC is not reccognised as an independent creature with separate and different rules. Jimbo, himslf, made this very clear here . Giano (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Further plea and misplaced clarification by Bishonen (but if not here, then where?)

I'm replying here to FT2's response to Carcharoth's basic question why the final principle "The Arbitration Committee has recently been asked by Jimbo Wales to take an expanded role in the governance of IRC. The Committee is formulating policy and procedure changes based on this new role independently from this case" (passed 7-1) and its associated remedy "Policy and procedure changes regarding Misplaced Pages IRC channels will be addressed separately by this committee" (passed 9-0), have both come to naught. My post goes to clarifying the committee's final principles and remedies as they relate to en-admins IRC case—it's not about FT2's block of Giano—therefore I post it here, in preference to drowning it at the now extremely copious discussion of that block on WP:AE (most of it posted by FT2). Yes, I know I'm not supposed to post in this section, which is for arbs, but it seems my only chance of being heard. (I won't post again, whether or not you remove me from this spot, Thatcher. This has taken me much too much time as it is.)

Like probably most people, I feel at an awful disadvantage when attempting to discuss or debate with FT2, since he seems impressively able to write about 100 lines in the space of time that it takes your average wikipedian to write 20, and me to write 5. (And NYBrad to write 70 or so.) My efforts in the direction of debate with FT2 have always literally drowned. But I will try just once to do my own clarification. I made an effort to come to grips with the background to FT2's new guidelines for IRC (at this moment not available in CBrown's space, but mirrored at )—these guidelines being the only mouse that has so far been born from the laboring mountains of the IRC case, and it's final principles and remedies. The background to the guidelines, as offered by FT2 in channel to anybody interested, turned out to be an edited log of a discussion between FT2 and some 6 or 10 channel users (by FT2's own estimate) from February 25-26. I have it here. It's been edited by FT2 to remove irrelevancies, and consists–well, I don't have any counting tool that will work for this— but at my rough estimate, the discussion consists to at least 80% of FT2 himself talking, mainly describing how well the channel works now:

(Exact quote of log)

• <FT2> irc runs well now (here)
• <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
• <FT2> we're like in wikipedia in the old days, "dont be a dick" and "no real rules otherwise"
• <FT2> we have our sort of "unspoken code"
• <FT2> a user who harasses here will (or probably should be) talked to or sorted out/calmed down...
• <FT2> a user who canvasses persistently likewise
• <FT2> these things dont much happen, we have a sort of unspoken code here
• <FT2> its nice
• <FT2> but the outside world doesnt know it
• <FT2> also channel ops dont know what's okay to do, so if a dispute breaks out, like the bishonen/tony one a while back... should they act? or not.

I discussed these matters with FT2 in PM on IRC several times, before he actually sent me the above log to look at, and I was rather shocked by his descriptions of that log. Here's a snippet of our discussion from March 5, posted with permission.

(Exact quote except that an e-mail address and a couple of typos have been removed.)

• <bishonen> may I have a copy of the full discussion of the channel? there was something about that in the header before.
• <FT2-away> sure :)
• its enacted now but there wasnt any controversy on it -- most folks reaction was "yeah, commonsense"
• <bishonen> thanks
• <FT2-away> I was just very careful to consult hugely to be sure that nobody could accidentally feel unasked or whatever. You know how it can go.
• <bishonen> i thought there was going to be a workgroup, or the arbcom would be involved.
• <FT2-away> I was thinking of the dispute over roillback.
• nah
• <bishonen> hugely?....
• <FT2-away> the channel basically sorted it out, about 6 or 10 people, everyone was pretty much "yeah, commonsense" by the time it was done
• <bishonen> so more people than the users of this channel were invoived?
• <FT2-away> no...
• <bishonen> i see
• <FT2-away> but there are a lot of users here... and of course those include a load of people who arent often here
• <bishonen> that's not hugely in my book, i'm afraid. but whatever.
• <FT2-away> the concern was to clean up and ensure that issues of the past were not going to be perrennial
• <bishonen> let me get this straight. only admins have been consulted? and only the minority of admins that use the admin channel?
• <FT2-away> and that's much more about people here accepting norms and considering what norms they feel apply, than about asking others... most people here or elsewhere who care about irc stuff, know what the issues are or were anyway
• <bishonen> do they?

To recapitulate: What has happened with the policy and procedures of the IRC en-admins channel since the IRC case was closed, then, is that there are now new guidelines for it in CBrown's userspace (update: no, actually at this moment in Martinp23's userspace), authored (largely) by FT2, and emphasizing how well the channel currently works. The origin of the new guidelines was an IRC discussion, massively dominated by FT2 himself, on February 25-26 between FT2 and a few admins. So much for the expanded role in the governance of IRC that the ArbCom undertook in its final principle. So much for its new oversight as foreseen in the remedy it voted for. May we please have some commentary from some of the arbs besides FT2—from those that put hand to keyboard and voted for a new role of arbcom with respect to IRC—voted for changes in policy and procedure, changes to be addressed by the committee—voted 9-0 and 7-1? FloNight? Newyorkbrad? Paul August? Clarification please? Especially, clarification of that which is never clarified by anybody, but always sidestepped — the role of James Forrester as envisaged by arbcom — would be appreciated to the point of jubilation. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC).

What on earth does one say, reading the above - just sums up the truth of what I have been saying for weeks. Have our Arbcom anything to say to justify themselves? Or are we all to be banned for wondering, and demanding that they answer and explain themselves. Giano (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I voted oppossed to the related "principle" and abstained with regard to the related "remedy". As far as I know ArbCom has yet to take any official action with regard to either. Paul August ☎ 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by White Cat

Not that I want to stir trouble but I would like to remind people the above rule. Be careful what you post here as this is a public place to publish things. I just don't want to see anyone get banned.

-- Cat 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that these excerpts were posted by one of the participants with the explicit permission of the other; there is no issue on that front. — Coren  22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not accusing anyone of wrong doing. In the heat of the dispute people sometimes forget such things. This was intended as a good faith reminder. Nothing more or less. -- Cat 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Good questions by all, and I'll have a go at an answer, but it probably won't be brief. Others will obviously have their view too. Firstly, some background reading for anyone unfamiliar with matters - and that includes a number of people who might feel they are familiar. I tried to describe the main points of the background on IRC as I see it (both sides) at: WP:RFC/IRC channels#Comment by FT2. It's "essential background" on the issue and dynamics, and forms the context of the decisions and any reply.

In the meantime I'm fitting drafting a fuller reply in between working stuff in my wiki-in-tray, as well as ever-present real world matters. I'll try to get it posted later today but it could be tomorrow or even a day beyond. That's unavoidable in a way -- the question actually asks for a short report in a way, rather than the usual simple opinion, since "measures taken" are meaningless without an understanding of the context, the disputes, and the various perspectives involved. And of course, a few have very strong views which in fact don't competely match reality, and that will be tricky to explain to them (as can happen in any dispute). So given the subject, it needs to be a bit more thorough. FT2  19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification/amendment: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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)

Statement by Moreschi

It is not clear to me whether the "area of conflict" for ARBAA2 is solely Armenian-Azeri articles, or whether it includes Azeri-Iranian/Iranian/Turkish articles, as I think it should, given it was these Perso-Turkic disputes that was partly responsible for kicking off the arbitration case in question. Going back over my little list I find a good number of Perso-Turkic arbcom cases: given this, I don't think it's unreasonable to extend, if necessary, the Armenia-Azeri discretionary sanctions to include Azeri-Iranian/Armenian-Turkish/etc. Just to clarify, I think the "area of conflict" for discretionary sanctions should be "articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area". This accords with {{Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement}}, but there seems to be dispute over the matter, not to mention confusion. So, do the discretionary sanctions apply only to Armenia-Azeri articles, or are we permitted a broader scope? Moreschi (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nishkid64

I have no problem broadening the "area of conflict" to include Turkey and Iran. The only reason I brought up this issue was because Moreschi reworded the AA2 remedy without consultation or clarification from ArbCom. In response to bainer's comments, I must disagree with his interpretation of the two areas of conflicts. To me, "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" just refers to Armenia and Azerbaijan, while the other area of conflict covers Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran. The latter is not the same, as it addresses topics covered in separate ArbCom cases. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

My understanding is that the sanctions should apply to Iran and Turkey too as they involve related conflicts (particularly the Persian-Azeri/Iranian-Turkic edit war and issues relating to the Armenian Genocide). One user, ChateauLincoln (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has already been restricted under these sanctions simply for edit-warring on an article about an Iranian city which has little to do with Armenia-Azerbaijan. I think the AA2 remedy should be reworded in line with the template to clarify matters. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alex Bakharev (talk)

I am against broadening the scope of the remedies. The intended scope of the arbcom and remedies was always Azerbaijan and Armenia and related issues, while there might be problems on Turkey and Iran articles but they were outside the arbcom scope. If we include Turkey and Iran we get a huge geographical and historical areas covered by a very few (often tendentious) editors. If we include it to the scope we could easily get all the active editors there banned on a whim. We should also remember that the buck does not stop here. We have huge Turkey-Greece, Turkey-Kurdish, Kurdish-Arab, Iran-Arab, Iran-Afghanistan problems so why not include Arabic, Greek and Afghani editors as well, then we would notice Arab-Israeli, Greek-Macedonian, USA-Arabic editorial conflicts and we would broad the scope of the remedies to the half of the wikieditors. Lets not extend the scope of the remedies on a whim we need a line here Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by White Cat

I think the arbcom remedies are far too harsh. There currently is a martial law in the articles covered by this case making it very unpleasant to make any kind of edits. Particularly in experienced new users are bitten to death. Also good users avoid these articles due to the near-malicious attempts to abuse the remedies. So you are pretty much left with a group of disruptive users battling each other editing from multiple sockpuppet accounts. Of course this is an oversimplification of the issue but still something to think about.

Really disruptive users do not obey the arbcom remedies and edit through sockuppets. While reviewing logs for the case below I noticed the block log of Fadix which was quite recently reset making it the 4th reset. Such users should perhaps be indef banned for good. I gave Fadix as an example pretty much randomly, any other ban evaders should share the same faith.

Rather that expanding the scope of the case, users that edit disruptively should be penalized for gaming the system. The second you expand the scope disruptive users will find a new topic to disrupt, away from the remedies in question.

Also, based on my experience I feel several of the involved admins are far too involved and are unable to make sound judgments. It might be necesary to review their conduct.

-- Cat 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Remedies 1 and 2 can be narrowly read in such a way that they seem to cover different articles for different editors. The amended remedy did not redefine the scope of the case, and only says, "area of conflict." However, the last time this issue was brought before the committee, the answer was that it was the intent of the committee that the same scope and remedies apply to all editors, see Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Clarification request October 2007. Thatcher 10:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The January motion essentially substituted in our more recent boilerplate for general discretionary sanctions; it made no change to the original scope of the discretionary sanctions, which was "articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts". For the original supervised editing sanction the more explicit wording "any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area" was used, though to me those are exactly the same, the latter merely being more precise. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording has to be tightened. Obviously the case was written to control the AA problems and the effects thereof, meaning clashes between A or A against Iran or A or A against Turkey. As the wording stands, something which does not have AA as a common factor, eg, something about the Hittites or even some ancient archaeology like Ephesus or Ahmadinejad and Jews can be put under this sanction if a dispute arises. I think it'll have to include the provision of "Turkish and Iranian history and ethnic issues that are related to Armenia and/or Azerbaijan. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Request for appeal: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

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

• White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Formerly Coolcat) (initiator)
• Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Anatolmethanol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Drosophilawhodoestnotfly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Rodolui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Didodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  1 year ban per Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Fadix banned (ban reset on 25 February 2008)

• Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Diyarbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Indef blocked per WT:RFAR/Moby Dick#Request for clarification and indefinite block of Moby Dick, April-May 2007

• Stereotek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  aka Karl Meier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Inactive since 14 February 2008

Appeal by White Cat

I'd like to appeal for the #Coolcat prohibited from mediating remedy. I was banned from acting as a mediator until I was officially appointed to the Mediation Committee. While I do want to help out as a mediator I do not necessarily want to be officially appointed.

I have not notified other involved parties because two of them have been indefinitely blocked and I do not want to bother the third one since we pretty much parted ways.

-- Cat 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by arbitrator Sam Blacketer

The community will not show any confidence in a person with such a remedy. Mediation Committee will not officially appoint such a person. The reality on the ground is this. -- Cat 14:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by Moreschi

I find that statement very offensive and provocative. I am not racist. The statement is in no way parallel to reality. I have not edited the said topics for months for example. If the assertion in the statement were accurate, should I not be banned indefinitely? -- Cat 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by arbitrator Newyorkbrad

All my past mediation attempts failed because Davenbelle and Fadix interfered with each and every one of them. The decision by arbcom back in 2005 omitted this detail.

Back then arbcom was also not able to rule on the Davenbelle stalking issue. Since then not a whole lot has changed. In the form of Jack Merridew, Davenbelle is still around and just like back then arbcom is unhelpful in resolving the dispute.

So because people have replaced Davenbelle/Fadix's role in trolling disagreements to full scale flame wars and because I have completely lost my faith in dispute resolution as of #Jack Merridew case on this very page, I have no intention of engaging in mediation or dispute resolution processes (RfC's, RFAr's, anything else I left out) of any kind from now on. All my sanctions from that first arbitration case has expired. There is this one leftover which I would be better off without. People have been slapping me with it to gain advantage in debates. Most peopled do not even know about it, but people who harass/stalk me definitely use such things.

The remedy in question was never enforced. I also cannot see how it could be enforced. Mediating isn't a disruptive activity. As you point out the remedy in question was passed 4-3 in other words with 1 net support vote. 1.1 version was 5-2 which is 3 net votes. 1.2 version had 7 net support votes. I was given the most severe remedy.

-- Cat 16:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by arbitrator bainer

Unfortunately it is not possible for me to give such an example. All my mediation attempts including the ones on topics I have no opinion on had interference by Davenbelle. In fact Davenbelle was present on nearly every article I edited, every discussion or vote I have participated in since my earliest days on Misplaced Pages. There had been exceptions but overwhelmingly there wasn't an instance where Davenbelle/Stereotek and to a degree Fadix wasn't involved.

Javier Solana was one of them, Nanjing Massacre another. I tried mediating both topics and I knew nothing about them. I still don't know much as I do not care.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence/Coolcat
  • #Interference with my mediation attempt at Nanking massacre. Also a senseless revert war for image sizes
  • #Interference with my mediation attempt at Javier Solana

I admit starting to learn how to mediate on Genocide/Massacre related articles was not the best of all ideas. I realized that back then and focused on Javier Solana. Davenbelle followed me to that one too.

I do not believe a successful mediation is possible under the conditions I operated. Issues requiring mediation are already tense and do not need a stalker coming in to attack the mediator. Disaster is guaranteed in such conditions. I do not believe the mediator should be blamed for the failure.

I would oppose such a topic mediation ban. Not that I would mediate such things but the presence of such a remedy would again be used limitlessly by trolls on unrelated issues such as RFAs. "No one wants an admin who is sanctioned by arbcom indefinitely" for example. Community won't trust a person under arbitration remedies. In other words community wont trust someone arbcom believes cannot be trusted that they pass remedy that wont expire. So cause and effect has entered an infinite loop here.

-- Cat 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to the statement by Folantin

See, when you keep encountering the same people it starts to bother you...

Above is from Talk:List of attacks by the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

Not surprising that a Armenia-Azerbaijan mob started showing up. User:Moreschi was also involved with this article in question.

I stated above: "people have replaced Davenbelle/Fadix's role". I stand corrected. This is why I will not even attempt to mediate.

I also thank Folantin for clearly establishing that I had no pov issues with the "Nanking massacre" article. Had Davenbelle, Stereotek and Fadix not collectively interfered who knows how would the mediation work out...

-- Cat 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not talking about your presence here but your presence there... Someone who does not acknowledge governmental sources as a (biased or not) reliable source is unfit to talk about NPOV. -- Cat 16:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to misunderstand the basics behind NPOV. Turkish government as far as I know has a very consistent view on the issue in question which is adequately covered on the linked webpage. If it doesn't appeal to your perspective of history, too bad. Coverage on Misplaced Pages isn't about "truth" but about what is sourced. If you can challenge a source with another one, the wording can be adjusted accordingly. You presented no such source to date. Your reasons to exclude the said source seems to be your own personal point of view just as your presence here. -- Cat 17:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to statement by Black Kite

Me suspecting that someone is a sockpuppet has little to do with the remedy I am appealing for. I do believe my suspicion has a basis and I am quite certain to that end. It is an ongoing case never the less far from complete. -- Cat 20:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

I really don't recommend altering this. White Cat is still the same old Armenian-bashing, anti-Kurd POV-pusher he was back at the time of the arbitration case. At the very least mediators should pretend to some faint semblance of neutrality. White Cat doesn't come close to cutting the mustard. Moreschi (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil on this page Moreschi. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. You chaps are seriously contemplating letting White Cat - White Cat - go back to mediating. And you're freaking out because I called him a POV-pusher, an entirely accurate description, as Folantin has nicely proved. Talk about screwball sense of priorities. Moreschi (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, White Cat has just made my point for me. He still thinks that the Turkish Government is a reliable source for matters relating to the Armenian Genocide and Armenian-Turkish conflict stemming from the genocide, despite countless attempts to explain to him why this is not the case. It's the old, classic fallacy of equating NPOV with middle ground. HE JUST DOES NOT GET IT. Mediators need clue as well. Moreschi (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I suggest not changing the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from AGK

I'd like to note that the remedy self-terminates when White Cat (née Cool Cat) is appointed to the Mediation Committee—not the Mediation Cabal. There's a few mentions of the MedCab in various statements and comments (I pick up on Sam's view, below, as an example). After all, one cannot be "appointed" to the Mediation Cabal, by its very nature. Just a comment, for technical accuracy purposes. AGK § 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin

No thanks. White Cat's contributions to the 2005 Nanking massacre talk page are an object lesson in how NOT to mediate a contentious article. In White Cat's own words: "I tried mediating both topics and I knew nothing about them. I still don't know much as I do not care". That's the reason why it failed, not the interference of some stalker. White Cat thought that committing the fallacy of middle ground ("it's always six of one and half a dozen of the other") at enormous length was somehow equivalent to NPOV. As Bathrobe put it when, well into the mediation, White Cat asked who Koizumi was: "It is a bit rich that Cool Cat is trying to moderate this article when he doesn't even know who the current Prime Minister is. How can you decide what the facts are when you don't even know the basic ones"? His attempted "mediation" of the Armenian genocide article was even worse, given the obvious pro-Turkish bias of his general editing history.

An example of White Cat's "moderation" : "You are obligated to recognise my authority and the authority of all moderators and they recognise yours, you are welcome to ignore me but any more Personal Attacks from you will not be tollerated. Such attacks will result in your destruction, I do not WANT your destruction. I am warning you so that you dont get destroyed. This is neither a threat nor an attack - just a freindly warning. I am a moderator and so are you. Everyone on wikipedia is a moderator. Not everyone is an Admin. I know mods who turn down admin requests as it is a lot of hard work so dont underestimate/dismiss us mods". --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to White Cat

Your point being what? I've collaborated with Moreschi on several occasions trying to maintain NPOV on Armenian-Azeri-Turkish-Iranian pages. In fact, I only noticed this appeal when I was looking for clarification on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arb regarding Iranian articles. You seem to have taken up semi-permanent residence on RFAR and ANI, so it's hardly surprising people keep stumbling across you. None of this has any bearing on the arguments I presented. --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Must be a new definition of reliable source if we're allowed to use a Turkish tourist board website trying to attract punters by presenting a history of Armenian-Turkish relations so skewed that it doesn't mention the Seljuk invasions (erm, so how exactly did the Turks get to Armenia in the first place?), the Hamidian massacres or even the Armenian genocide. Mind you, it took forever to get you to stop linking blatant hate sites like TallArmenianTale. But that's beside the point. "This is why I will not even attempt to mediate". Good. So we're all agreed now. --Folantin (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I would just point out that a meditor's main attribute is an ability to assume good faith, yet White Cat writes above "In the form of Jack Merridew, Davenbelle is still around..." despite nothing of the sort having been proved. Black Kite 20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon69

I have had no real on-wiki interaction with this editor and have only known this editor through IRC though with only a small amount of time has been spent in direct conversation with him but i feel that perhaps in the spirit of this encyclopedia's OWN policy we all start assuming a little good faith. This was passed 2 years ago and time has moved on. It may be an idea to allow him an opportunity to mediate one case under supervision through MedCabal by co-mediation. Now i don't expect him to solve this case as the Cabal has far from a 100% success rate but i think what does deserve to happen is that we see how he acts. Seddon69 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Xavexgoem

I second Seddon69. I was in IRC at the time, and this seems like a common sense approach. Note that I was not canvassed; I just wandered into the conversation and was bored enough to go through the diffs in the '05 arbcom case. Conduct may have been poor at that time, but I agree with Seddon69 that this was 2 years ago and People Change. I think that allowing mediation through WP:MEDCAB would be best to allow some degree of oversight; and I recommend to White Cat that he avoid mediating issues ethnic, religious, or political (esp. in regards to SW Asia), but that would be up to him.

I don't believe I've seen him around medcab's talk page, so I don't know what the coordinators (User:PhilKnight & User:Vassyana) and other old timers would think of this. At any rate, I think it's acceptable to drop the sanction but bring transgressions to enforcement per the '05 case. A trial run, if you will. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Recuse. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The remedy unusually has a built-in provision for its own termination: if White Cat can win the confidence of the community and be appointed to the Mediation cabal, the remedy is discharged. While noting that he prefers not to go down this route, I regard it as the best way of determining if he is a suitable user to act as mediator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Some of the remedies and especially the long-forgotten enforcement provision contained in the Davenbelle decision are weird. It also is not completely clear to me that remedy 1 (rather than 1.1) is the one that should have been deemed to have passed. That being said, it is apparent that when this case was decided a couple of years ago, the arbitrators were pretty much unanimously convinced that White Cat's talents lie in areas unrelated to mediating disputes and that his past attempts at mediation had worsened rather than helped solve problems. I would like to ask White Cat to briefly explain what has changed since the time of that decision such that he now wants to help mediate things again. I would also ask White Cat if he would agree that any attempts at informal mediation (because the chances that he will be appointed to the Mediation Committee are non-existent) would related to areas unrelated to the topics on which he has engaged in editorial disputes recently, such as Turkish/Kurdish and episodes-and-characters-related matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, choosing 1 to pass does seem odd. I too think the underlying opinion was clear. There were two common factors (subject-matter in which White Cat has an interest, and the involvement of certain editors) which probably contributed to the failure of those attempts at mediation, but the third common factor remains White Cat's involvement. The issue for you, White Cat, is to demonstrate which of these factors is really the problem; that is, should we continue to prevent you from acting as mediator altogether, or would the better remedy be to restrict you merely from mediating disputes to do with those certain editors or certain subject-matter? It would be good if you could point to some incidences of successful mediation that you had been involved in before this remedy was passed. --bainer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wholly opposed to removing these restrictions. I do not feel that the encyclopedia project will be helped thereby. The restrictions were imposed because of real problems. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Andries: appeal of topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba

Initiated by user:Andries. Andries (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

I request a complete lift of my topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba. It has been more than a year now. My edits on the topic were described by the arbcom as generally responsible Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Editing_by_Andries Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Editing_by_Andries and no diffs of disruptive or activist editing on the article Sathya Sai Baba were provided by the arbcom members in spite of my demand to several arb com members to back up the allegations against me with diffs. Please read the comment by user:Bishonen Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editing

If a complete lift of the topic ban is not granted then I request a partial lift e.g. only talk page or only on Sathya Sai Baba movement that contains now some (entertaining) original research POV comments. (I can give details on request) I was and still am the only serious contributor to that article and there were never serious problems with it. Please check the history to check of Sathya Sai Baba movement to see whether I am incompetent or a blatant POV pusher.

Also, I purchased some of the sources as recommended by Jossi and the arbcom on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2, which is fine material on Sathya Sai Baba movement (and to a much lesser extent for Sathya Sai Baba).

This is not about anti-Sathya Sai Baba activism but about providing correct information. For example, the summary of the article Sathya Sai Baba contains as per 14 March a blunder diff that remained uncorrected as of 22 March. Sathya Sai Baba is generally not described by his followers as a godman (Hindu ascetic) and this is not supported by the listed references in Sathya Sai Baba and Godman (Hindu ascetic). Godman is a term used in Western Academics and only very rarely by followers of Sathya Sai Baba. I guess everybody agrees that nobody wants blunders to remain uncorrected in the summaries. Andries (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I want to repeat my opinion that the problem with the article was in part due to the nature of the subject and the sources available as the following quote illustrates.

The strict fact of his personal biography and manner of life are buried beneath layer upon layer of hagiography. (see esp. the works of Kasturi; also Gokak 1975). As far as I am aware no objective account of Sathya Sai Baba’s life has been written by anyone close to him. Indeed such an account may be an inherent impossibility: it unlikely that anyone who is allowed in to his inner circles would want to write in such a vein.
Thus Sathya Sai Baba himself cannot be the actual subject of an account of his cult. For now, so supposedly ‘real’ Sathya Sai Baba’ can be anymore real than an imagined character in fiction.

— Lawrence A. Babb, Redemptive Encounters: Three Modern Styles in the Hindu Tradition, (Comparative Studies in Religion and Society, chapter Sathya Sai Baba’s miracles, published by Waveland press 2000 (original publisher is by Oxford University Press 1987) ISBN 577661532, page 160

I also hope that arbcom members can review the effect of complete topic banning (incl. talk page) of long time contributors with a good knowledge of the subject and access to sources before making similar decisions. I hope that the arbcom will not repeat such flawed decisions in other cases.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I take the view that this remedy, whether appropriate in the first place, is no longer needed. As noted in the original case, Andries was not an irresponsible editor of Sathya Sai Baba. His position as webmaster of a site critical of Sathya Sai Baba does give a conflict of interest on matters directly relating to that website but it is stretching a point to say that it gives a conflict of interest on the entire subject. Therefore I will be proposing to discharge the remedy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

Request to amend prior case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge

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

• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ()
• FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ()
• KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) ()

Statement by MastCell

I recently requested review of the Ferrylodge decision, which found that Ferrylodge was subject to indefinite sanctions and could be banned from any "article" relating to pregnancy or abortion which he disrupted. I believe that Ferrylodge was disruptive at Talk:Abortion; however, there was some dispute as to whether the sanction extended to all namespaces, or merely article-space.

The previous request is here. It was archived by a clerk at a point where two Arbs had opined, seeming (to me at least) to indicate that the sanction should apply across all namespaces. However, the AE request which started it all was closed without action based on the recent Macedonia clarification. I'm a bit confused.

I'd like a clear finding about whether Ferrylodge's sanction applies to all namespaces, or only to article-space. If it applies narrowly to article-space, then I'd like to request that the Committee formally extend the sanction to all namespaces, as Ferrylodge's disruptive editing has always been most prominent in talkspace. While the specific thread which led to my request has become dormant, the underlying issue remains, and Ferrylodge has in the past temporarily improved his behavior when under scrutiny only to relapse when the scrutiny is lifted. Therefore, I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces.

Given the extensive degeneration and misdirection evident at my prior request, I'll state upfront that I'm not going to respond to attacks, criticism, deflection, specific content issues, etc in this request. I want to keep this focused on the specific amendment I'm requesting. I will provide more detailed evidence of any specific claim should the Arbitrators think it would be useful; that will be the extent of my commentary here. MastCell  18:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to GRBerry: The finding of fact from the ArbCom case pointed to a "long history of disruptive editing", referencing evidence of disruption across article and talk namespaces. I presented more evidence of continuing disruption in talkspace in my AE request. The fact is that Ferrylodge is intermittently disruptive in talkspace, backing off temporarily when attention is drawn to his behavior. If the expansion of this remedy hinges on my providing yet more evidence of his behavior, then I will, but it should not be this hard to slightly expand the wording of a probation on an disruptive editor. I'm not talking about banning him; I'm just asking that he behave on talk pages and not just in articlespace. MastCell  23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ferrylodge

Unfortunately, I do not have time today to comment much. Hopefully I will have time to respond more fully on Monday or Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with Mastcell.

The administrator who handled this matter at Arbitration Enforcement said: "Even had the ArbComm clarified that it was clearly intended to cover talk pages; I was probably not going to act. Using an article's talkpage to discuss article content is not inherently disruptive; that is the intended purpose of the talk page."

Mastcell has not cited any specific article edit by me that he finds disruptive; he has only provided talk page diffs. And yet, he is requesting a vast expansion of the ArbCom decision in my case: "I'd like to request that the sanction be prospectively clarified or amended to apply to all namespaces." Is Mastcell referring to project namespace? Is he referring even to user namespace? I do not know. In any event, if Mastcell really wants to argue that I have recently been behaving disruptively at the abortion talk page, it would be most helpful if Mastcell would please identify the single specific diff that he thinks is most egregious, so that we can focus on it.

I believe that Mastcell was being disruptive recently at the abortion-related articles, and I have no regrets about reverting him here at the abortion article. I also continue to be flabbergasted by his subsequent reversion here at the related main article. So, I have concerns that Mastcell may be using this ArbCom forum in consequence of a content dispute, rather than because of any real disruption on my part.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Mastcell indicates that he does not want to identify the specific diff that he thinks is most egregious (as I requested above), I doubt it would be helpful for me to say anything further at this time.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Mastcell's Response to GRBerry: Mastcell, you are accusing me of disruption for saying things like the following to another editor: "You're repeatedly pasting massive amounts of redundant stuff, swamping whatever comments other people make." Mastcell, do you think that if another editor pastes massive amounts of redundant stuff at a talk page, thus swamping whatever comments other people make, then I should praise instead of criticize such an editor? Perhaps you will now accuse me of cherry-picking your criticisms of me, but the fact is that I have (over and over again) asked you to cherry-pick your criticisms of me, so that I can respond concisely to what you regard as my most serious offense. Please, go ahead and cherry-pick from your arguments, so that we can focus on a serious complaint instead of one of your less compelling complaints. I do not think that ArbCom is interested in me trying to put in context and rebut every single one of your laundry-list of Ferrylodge quotes. Pick your best one, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by GRBerry

When handling the last, now stale, WP:AE complaint I noted that the case log did not provide evidence that an expansion to talk pages was merited, and encouraged MastCell to provide evidence of disruption in other pages if he felt expansion was merited. It is getting now close to a month since I made this suggestion. This leads me to suspect that there is not readily available evidence to support an expansion. Unless evidence is suddenly forthcoming, I tend to believe that expansion is not currently needed. GRBerry 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I see that this request for clarification has sat here for 10 days without input from any arbitrator, which is excessive, and I apologize since the situation is 1/15th my fault. Having said that, can I ask the parties to comment whether this situation is an ongoing problem that you feel still requires action by the committee, or whether it has calmed down. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere The specific dispute which sparked this request is stale. I don't see any need to do anything retroactive to address such past disputes anymore - it would be punitive at this point - but I would still like a narrow and straightforward prospective clarification that in the future Ferrylodge's sanctions apply across all namespaces, if ArbCom feels this is appropriate. In this specific case the letter of the decision appears to be fairly important, and without a clarification my belief is that this will come up again. Just a simple change in the remedy from "articles" to "any page" would do the trick from my perspective. MastCell  21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Please feel free to move this comment if it belongs elsewhere Mastcell is requesting a change in the remedy in my case. This should be supported by evidence. It would be helpful if Mastcell would please identify the specific diff that he thinks is most representative of such evidence, so that we could focus on it. Additionally, I would like to ask how to go about entirely erasing the remedy in my case. Presumably it was not intended to last for the rest of my life. The remedy has been in effect since last year, and there have not been any blocks or bans.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See the proposed decision; here an "any page" remedy did not pass, whereas the alternative "article" formulation did, so in this case "article" means "article". --bainer (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "any page" formulation was an outright ban, whereas the "article" remedy which did pass merely enabled an uninvolved admin to ban him if necessary. I thought the thrust of the difference between the two proposals was the ban vs. the probation, rather than page v. article, but obviously I'm guessing. In any case, based on previous events, can I request that the remedy be formally amended to apply to any "page" related to abortion or pregnancy which Ferrylodge disrupts? MastCell  19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

• Misplaced Pages arbitration
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee