Revision as of 10:34, 7 June 2009

• 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.

Requests for amendment

Use this section: To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems. To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly) How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment: The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header), The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision, The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

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

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

• Durova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Durova

On 23 March 2008 Benjiboi was topic banned from the Matt Sanchez per discretionary sanctions at arbitration enforcement. Overall, Benjiboi's history as a Wikipedian editor has been a good one. It can feel like a scarlet letter to a longstanding editor to be under arbitration restriction. He's been under the ban from the article and its talk page for over a year, has not evaded the restriction, and he'll probably be more constructive if he decides to edit there again. If problems resume the restriction can be reinstated, of course.

Posting as the editor who started the AE thread that resulted in his restriction; let's give this a second chance. Durova 16:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Committee is welcome to structure Benjiboi's return as it sees fit and Benjiboi is welcome to seek mentorship, supervision, or some other arrangement. Durova 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To Risker: a banner has been at the top of Benjiboi's user talk page for about the last year:

I have been page banned, seen here, unjustly and without due process - no warning, no dialog whatsoever - by an admin who has a history of such conduct. Efforts to clear my reputation (not all from me) are here, here, here and here. Hopefully this breach in practice will ultimately lead to a clearer and more just policy in how bans are to be enacted.

In specific reply to the offer to open the current motion he answered:

Of course. I'd would also like to see Misplaced Pages:Banning policy cleared up a bit but feel being banned at the same time would be seen as conflicted in some way so have stayed clear to avoid the appearance of somehow gaming policies. -- Banjeboi 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

He previously appealed his topic ban to the Committee and to Jimbo. From the start I felt that his sanction was a pretty close call. It wasn't what I was originally seeking upon opening the AE thread, and have been on the fence about whether to support its continuance or initiate a request for its end. He probably felt he'd run out of appeals, but an unsolicited motion of support from the editor whose complaint had triggered a sanction sometimes tips the balance. Durova 20:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Benjiboi

Note: apologies in advance for the length here, this has been a bit painful so I'm attempting to proactively address concerns.

As indicated by Durova I had rather given up hope on this and since appeals were met with "what, again" feedback I felt it was best just to leave it until someone else felt it was time to revisit the issue. My hope is to clear this off my name, even if availble to admins to still see, as it has been the most stress I have faced here and seems only to serve to shame me in some way when I feel the ban could have been prevented in the first place.

I appealed immediately and my inexperience in wikilawyering showed. Although there are exceptions I think Misplaced Pages:Banning policy should be similar structured to blocking policies in at least that dialog preceeds banning so an editor can look to adjusting thier approach and striking unhelpful comments, etc. Also giving editors, especially experienced editors, indefinite bans with little hope of removing them if the admin isn't open to the idea also seems out of step with the spirit of AGF. I was instead bundled with another editor who I often disagreed with who was certainly causing disruption there. As Durova states this was perhaps borderline, but IMHO, no ban was needed.

I feel this is a bit of an exceptional case because the subject themselves had been the source of many problems and my ban was tied to their direct statements to get me and other "homosexual" (and much more colourful termed) editors away from it as is evident in the talkpage archives, the main case and, apparently, in OTRS communications. The article and talkpage were battlegrounds prior to my involvement and was tied to the very poor conduct of the subject of the article who seemed to feel volume outweighed policies. They may have been baited and trolled but even after that had been largely addressed the attacks from them continued. Prior to my ban I had worked to clean-up the talkpage and the article and much of my efforts are what you see there presently. Especially keeping the talkpage clear to discuss issues and resolve concerns.

I felt the ban was unneeded and dialog would have negated the need for a ban, at least in my case. I do, and did, apologize for my part in how I conducted a sourcing dispute (YouTube videos that should have been properly attributed to the original source), poor use of blogs, and sarcastic comments, a sign of frustration but unhelpful none the less.

I still feel BLP issues need to be discussed on talkpages and have been in many similar discussions; this is not activism (of which I was accused) but follwing reliable sourcing and BLP policies. Given an instant replay I would have taken Durova's advice and looked to clarification at RSN board on how to handle the subject's own statements regarding their sexuality and sexual practices. I would have also worked to clean-up the sourcing issues which didn't need deleting but certainly weren't helped by simply reverting either.

Many editors felt discussion was being suppressed because the subject of the article was complaining vigorously about ... well, everything. After the subject's community and arbcom bans they apparently barraged OTRS with complaints including specifically naming me as I was among the few remaining editors on the talkpage who openly disagreed with some, but not all, of their many wishes and concerns. Frankly, it seemed like the decision to uphold the ban against me was along the lines of "we'll give the subject this one but that's it".

I've worked on many articles including BLPs since this unfortunate period and certainly would not take the same approach. I'm unconvinced that anyone needs to monitor my involvement there as I intend to avoid the subject and the article is well watched and also remains under arb enforcement. I also have real life concerns for my safety so am unlikely to be involved there at all. If ameniable I would also like to have my involvement on the arb case oversighted or otherwise masked so I am of less interest to anyone there. I do however do wikignoming bits on a volume of articles as well as trouble-shooting on LGBT-related articles so also don't want to be pilorized for even touching the article. -- Banjeboi 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other username

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Durova: I have no problems with lifting the sanction if you'll take responsibility for keeping an eye on the article and notifying us if Benjiboi starts violating BLP again. Kirill  16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear from Benjiboi on what he considers to be the best situation here. If he does not view this as an issue, then I am not inclined to make any changes in the current situation. If he *does* consider it an issue, then I am unclear why he did not post this request for amendment himself. Risker (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Durova: The links you provided demonstrate that Benjiboi himself last initiated a request that the ban be lifted in April 2008, just about a month after it was imposed. The other two requests (to the Committee and to Jimbo) were initiated by another editor, in September 2008. The Committee's door is open for him to make the request himself, or to propose alternative terms or probationary status; however, I fully expect an editor who wants an amendment to an action taken on behalf of this Committee to clearly articulate for him or herself exactly why that amendment should be made. Support (and concerns) from other editors is of course welcome. I understand that you have reasons not to wish to monitor the situation personally; however, with no alternative proposed, I cannot see this going forward. Risker (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Benjiboi: Thank you for coming to the table. I have, incidental to any matters before the Committee, had the opportunity to observe your work in the project, and more particularly your development as an editor, and your increased understanding of the importance of nuance in editing BLPs in particular; however, I'd urge you to reflect on the fact that sexual orientation is rarely the reason for notability of BLP subjects, and should be accorded only due weight, similar to the passing mention of significant others in the articles of "straight" subjects. Given your changes in practice over the ensuing year-plus, and your intention to avoid this particular article, I am willing to lift the topic ban. I do, however, expect you to take advantage of the many resources available to you when proposing to include non-standard reference sources. Risker (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Recuse due to being a clerk on the case. John Vandenberg 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names

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

• MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ? Named parties?

Statement by MickMacNee

• A dispute is ongoing about the proper venue for conducting discussion of the issues raised in this case. In particular, admin SarekOfVulcan blocked Domer48 for actions on the Republic of Ireland article talk page and the article itself. Discussion is on their talk pages, and at ANI here (stale). Request the committee ammends the case to explicitly confine discussion of the issues pertinent to the case, to the nominated discussion venue, namely WP:IECOLL. MickMacNee (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

Second this request. Part of Domer's argument for not being blocked was that ArbCom never said the individual article talkpages couldn't be used to discuss changing the name/focus of the individual articles. If the ArbCom could make it clear whether or not their intent was to move all discussion concerning page names/focuses into the location specified pursuant to remedy 2, that would be most useful. I think that confining discussion is the right thing to do, because we don't need half the articles working one way and half another.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by BigDunc

This shows that Sarek was telling factual inaccuracies, this is what Domer had asked to be shown and Sarek claimed was already in place when he blocked Domer. Sarek also claimed on ANI that it was in place it appears he/she was mistaken. BigDunc 19:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also for the record I oppose this what we need is a kick start to get it up and running again. And maybe the Domer debacle has done that. BigDunc 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the poll started by Deacon we deal with Facts not force of numbers. BigDunc 07:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rockpocket

I also urge ArbCom to be be explicit in their instructions for how this dispute should (and should not) be resolved. Sadly there are efforts to subvert the current process by forum shopping, with the apparent aim if creating a false consensus. That has been supported by claims that ArbCom did not explicitly put in place a structure for resolution and that ArbCom did not explicitly prohibit discussions from individual article talk pages. These claims are technically accurate, but clearly not in the spirit of the remedies ArbCom did pass. This could be resolved with a simple amendment stating the discussion should take place at a single centralized forum. Rockpocket 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim

This dispute is still running because the method ArbCom set up for resolving this was ineffective and collapsed, and contrary to the emerging norm of ArbCom practice in such areas, the hot-heads of the dispute didn't get topic banned and are continuing to ensure everything's as tendentious, partisan and heated as ever. No consensus will be built here by discussion. I pointed this out before, now I have been proven correct. What has to be done now is the process I recommended two months ago, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Moderator_action_..._next_step and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Building on what we have done so far and getting to a conclusion, a process that got the support of the most respectable editors participating. A decisive result would be produced, and though its results wouldn't please everyone, it would have a legitimacy lacking now. I propose the poll be moderated by Coren, who I propose because I think he is the arbitrator best cut out to deal with it and the likely nonsense. An arb is a preferential appointment because his authority is most likely to be respected, so I think one should be the nominal head even if he has deputies doing most of the actual work. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal page

I've opened a proposal page at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Community poll. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Personally, I'd like to see all the Arbitrators get together & decide via simple majority vote on a ruling for these articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by HighKing

The current process does not take into consideration the lack of incentive by some editors to allow a process (that will result in changes they don't agree with) to proceed. So they simply delay the process, slow it down, stick heels in, and are happy with a stagnant process. And you'd be surprised at how few editors it takes to achieve this. The current process and method requires a number of changes. Another point is that in general, weight of numbers also appears to sway arguments much more than the quality of the arguments and discussions, so having a senior arbitrator (or more than one) involved in order to actually make decisions and give directions is required. This should be (mutually, whatever) agreed up front, that the decisions of the arbitrator (committee, whatever) is respected, done in good faith, neutral, and most importantly accepted and final. I would add that we have also seen a recent flare-up in a very similar and possibly closely related "British Isles" edit-warring, disagreements and discussions. While a decision here does not effect a decision on "British Isles" as they can be decided seperately, I believe the community only has bandwidth to manage one dispute of this nature. I would suggest that ArbCom rules that all "British Isles" related article changes and renaming is banned until after the current process is decided, but with an undertaking that the issues outlined within the WP:BISLES taskforce will be worked on immediately after this one (I'm sure the lessons learned here will be valuable and speed up the WP:BISLES process). --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mooretwin

It becomes clearer with every dispute, every edit war, that the only solution to this is a comprehensive one, covering not merely the names of the articles, but a protocol for names within the texts of other articles, and for descriptive-names of articles (e.g. Politics of the Republic of Ireland, or Culture of Ireland).

There's been a compromise proposal on the table since December of last year, which was sadly ignored by Arbcom who put in place the recently-closed futile "statementing" process instead. It needs a bit more work to pin down detail (which is essential in order to avoid edit wars on the hundreds of articles across Misplaced Pages which refer to Ireland or the Republic), but the essence is there. Mooretwin (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah777

Utterly and totally oppose this. I oppose any attempt to stifle discussion of what is, put simply, the imposition of British POV in opposition to WP:NPOV . "Forum shopping"? There are so many articles where the network of British-Wiki political imposition impinges on Ireland-related articles that this proposal is an abusers charter. We will have biased (or uninformed) Admins blocking and banning right, left and centre. The SarekOfVulcan block has surely illustrated the dangers? The refusal of the Wiki Admin Community to recognise (or maybe to acknowledge) that what we have here is the imposition of Nationalist POV by simple numerical supremacy is the elephant in the room. What is proposed is yet another stratagem to silence Irish editors who refuse to accept the imposition of British pov under the guise of "consensus". Look no further than the calls (above) for votes to enforce majotitarianism rather than WP:NPOV. Which is a very different concept. As Mooretwin (who is generally on the opposite political pole to me on British/Irish issues) points out, there are compromises acceptable to reasonable editors on both sides, but Wiki appears unable to contemplate any change in the status quo. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded

Oppose it is however essential that someone takes a grip on the process, finding a solution to this has been stalled by a mediation process that never started and mediators who resigned. --Snowded 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by ClemMcGann

I concur with Sarah's statement, above. There are editors who wish to impose, what is, an imperialist agenda. Yet they seem oblivious to their errors. Their numbers give them confidence. This is a matter of regret. To compound the injury, it now appears that freely discussing these mistakes is some form of a thought-crime which can have an editor silenced. I tend not to get involved in these arguments. They are so wasteful. But, I feel that I must protest the actions of Sarek. With regret ClemMcGann (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Proposal Page.

I see that the Deacon has since opened a poll. Why? We know that there are more British editors. It would seem that mob rule will prevail. ClemMcGann (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Bastun

Concur with Deacon of Pndapetzim above. The process outlined in the original Arbcom Remedy 1 and Remedy 2 has, unfortunately, failed to get anywhere. Some progress was made, but we've been stymied by a lack of leadership from the moderators and, frankly, an unwillingness to give an inch from both sides, to the extent that factual statements (with a link to the relevant legislation), such as "The description of the state is defined in law as "the Republic of Ireland", by Section 2 of the Republic of Ireland Act 1948, which says in full: "It is hereby declared that the description of the State shall be the Republic of Ireland."" are opposed by some users.

I believe it is now up to Arbcom to take control and either impose a solution, or at least for a subcommittee of Arbcom members to take over the reigns at WP:IECOLL.

I would also like to point out that Sarah777 does not speak for or represent all (or many) Irish editors or Irish people generally, and some of her comments above seem to fly in the face of an already-imposed Arbcom remedy. Bastun 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by (currently uninvolved editor) Scolaire

First, an observation: looking at this discussion for the first time in six months I am astonished to discover that it has not moved on as much as an inch in that time! The identical arguments are still being recycled on a daily, sometimes an hourly, basis. How many cycles is that since August last year? Each side continues to believe that it has the overwhelming community support as against a handful of wreckers on the other side. What I see, as a (now) outsider, is overwhelming community boredom with the whole issue, and a handful of emotional editors intent on continuing their trench warfare, almost for its own sake. I wouldn't mind so much if it was even a good old-fashioned British/Irish, North/South or Nationalist/Unionist ding-dong, but it's not - it's a totally home-made war between two rainbow coalitions that doesn't reflect any equivalent debate in the real world!

Second, a question: as I understand it, the proposal here is for discussion of the issues to be confined to IECOLL, but Deacon of Pndapetzim has responded by opening a new community poll page; what has the one to do with the other? Does the creation of yet another new page not encourage decentralisation rather than the reverse?

Based on the above, and on the assumption that the question on the table is still about confining the cyclical homemade civil war to the designated area, I support the request. Scolaire (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by (original Arbitration requester) Evertype

Support if and only if ArbCom takes this seriously and actually does something. And that includes having a poll that actually gives all of the options, and allowing people to rank their preferences. This is not unlike the Proportional Representation we enjoy. There may be more than one option that I can support, and of several options I may prefer one configuration over another. I have seen arbitrator Masem propose a poll with only two options. I oppose this. Just above we see Deacon offering a new page; I requested that he add another option there but my proposal was dismissed because it "makes no sense" by which Deacon means he didn't agree with it. And we see just above Mooretwin pointing to his "compromise proposal"; note that I opposed that except as part of a more comprehensive solution. Such a solution cannot be devised by a simple majority binary poll. We need to recognize that a complex topic needs a complex poll. Like Scoláire above I am disillusioned by this process. So while appreciative of Sarah777's and Snowded's comments above, I think support is the appropriate suggestion. BY THE WAY I would like the Arbitrators to specifically address my request for a complex poll which offers a range of solutions and permits ranked preferences. -- Evertype·✆ 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

It doesn't appear as though the named parties have been notified; doing that now. Hersfold 14:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Guliolopez was notified on ga.wiki as well. Hersfold 14:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse - I did too much arbitration enforcement in this area last fall. Risker (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. As this has been spawned from these edits by Domer48, my view is that those edits were contrary to the spirit of remedy 3 "No moves pending discussion". If there are further occurrences of disruption of the status quo prior to a binding resolution, the issue should be brought to the committee, in order that a topic ban to be considered.
  Also, a third moderator has not been appointed (see Misplaced Pages:AC/N#Ireland_collaboration). Anyone interested should contact the committee. John Vandenberg 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Motions

Forum for discussion

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Support

1. John Vandenberg 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Moderation

Moderators of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

Support

1. John Vandenberg 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Request to amend prior case: Tango

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tango.

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

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

Statement by Tango

I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Since the reorganisation of RFAR there doesn't seem to be an explicit place for appeals. It has been just over a year since I was desysopped and, now that everything has calmed down (and I've finished my exams!), I would like the ArbCom to take another look at the case. My main grounds for appeal is this principle. The rule doesn't exist (hence the need for a link to MeatBall, there being no Misplaced Pages page to link to). It's not an "unwritten rule" that everyone knows, as evidenced by a arbitrator voting against it on the grounds that it doesn't exist. Therefore the principle is fundamentally flawed and any decision based on it is likewise flawed. For that reason, I request that the result of the case be overturned and, if anyone wants to, a new case be started so the matter can be considered de novo (I am happy for the desysopping to remain in force pending the result of a new case, if one is started). Thank you. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To MBisanz: I wouldn't generally consider the person that wrote it to be "involved or directly affected" (at least any more that anyone else on the committee at the time), but I'll go an notify him now, since you've asked. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have no objection to Newyorkbrad's participation in this appeal. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To Kirill: "An administrator is expected..." is a statement of policy, either written or unwritten, there is no other reasonable interpretation of that wording. An unwritten rule can only exist if everyone knows about it, that's the nature of unwritten rules, so one arb not knowing about it is enough to invalidate it. If I just wanted the mop back I would go to RFA, I'm here to clear my name. --Tango (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By the logic you are using, it is forbidden for any admin to take more than one piece of action over a given issue since, after the first, they are involved. My only involvement was that I gave the warning which MONGO made clear he intended to ignore. The principle in the case is far broader than existing policy - it says that it is never acceptable to block when you were the target, even when you being the target is incidental to the case and does not constitute an involvement. --Tango (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To Kirill: One persons lack of knowledge of an unwritten rule does invalidate it. The whole concept of unwritten rules makes no sense if they aren't universally known. --Tango (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

To Casliber: No, I do not have any remorse. I stand by my actions for the reasons stated at the time. If an administrator is not allowed to do the right thing for the project, I have no interest in being one. --Tango (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Username

Clerk notes

• The specific provision in question was drafted by ex-arb User:UninvitedCompany, Tango could you notify him of this request per the standard procedures? Thank you. MBisanz 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• When this case was originally brought, I recused myself because the underlying dispute involved a block based on user conduct relating to articles concerning the events of September 11, 2001, a topic area on which I do not arbitrate for reasons previously discussed on this page. At the time, some editors privately advised me that they my recusal in this case was unnecessarily conservative. In any event, I consider that the issues raised by the present request/appeal are quite remote from the underlying September 11 disputes. Accordingly, unless an objection is raised within 48 hours, I will participate in the consideration and disposition of this appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Seeing no objection, I'll comment on the merits of the appeal below (after the other comments already here, since I've read and considered them). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• There is no requirement that all principles in an arbitration decision be found in project policy, written or otherwise (compare, for example, this); they are simply statements of principle that the Committee considers to be valid. As such, asserting that the text of the principle is not found in policy is not grounds for an appeal even if true. (Nor, for that matter, does the opinion of a single arbitrator that a rule does not exist outweight the opinions of nine others who assert that it does.) If you wish to ask for your adminship to be restored (on the basis of good behavior in the interim, for example), I'm happy to entertain that appeal; but I see no reason why the original decision could in any way be considered invalid. Kirill  00:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Tango: well, I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken if you believe that one individual's ignorance of a rule somehow invalidates it. (If you really want to argue policy, incidentally, then consider that blocking for attacks against oneself is implicitly prohibited by the policy that an administrator may not use their tools "to advantage... or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist" (WP:ADMIN); that linking the title of a finding to an external document does not in any way invalidate the text of the finding itself; and that the section titles used in arbitration decisions are, in any case, present for convenience only, with only the text of each adopted provision constituting a substantive statement from the Committee). Kirill  00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Disclosure: I provided evidence in this case as a non-involved party. I had originally commented here, but on consideration believe it would be better for me to recuse. Risker (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• The case still would appear coherent and rational in the absence of the principle. Regardless, it seems basic to assert that when the admin is a directly involved party that they shouldn't be the one pushing the block button. If a rule is needed to spell out the principle: Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Misuse of administrative tools takes care to try and broadly communicate that the tools should not be used when an administrator is biased or involved in a situation or likely to appear as such. --Vassyana (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• The principle in question is nothing more than an application, to a particular situation, of the general principle that an administrator should not use their tools in situations in which they are involved. Note also that the MONGO block was only one of several poor blocks that were considered in the case. --bainer (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with my colleagues that this is merely an example-specific articulation of longstanding policy that admins may not use the tools when they are involved.  Roger Davies 10:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Interpretation of policy and of its applicability to specific situations is the Committee's raison d'être; the case principles are the fundamental reasoning followed by the arbitrators during deliberation, and there is rarely a 1:1 correspondence with policies. Finding guidance outside of Misplaced Pages for concepts which are applicable is not incompatible with this. — Coren  13:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Agreeing with the comments of the other arbitrators. The basis for a return of tools needs to be because of the desire to obtain the tools again after a history of good work on Misplaced Pages and the reassurance that you have a good understanding of Misplaced Pages policy about the use of admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• I understand Tango's concern about the principle from his case that he cites, and think it may have a bit more merit than some of my colleagues have suggested. As I have mentioned in another pending case, there is tension between the cited principle in RfAr/Tango, which states that an administrator should not block a user for personal attacks on the administrator himself or herself, and the principle set forth in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Combatting harassment, which provides that "ny user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." I reconcile these principles through the understanding that an administrator may block a user who has subjected the administrator to indisputable bad-faith harassment, but not one who has simply made uncivil remarks that may have gone a bit too far. This is an example of the general rule that "administrators may not use their administrator status or tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved", and the question on which we have had some internal disagreement as to whether this principle should be expressed with any nuances or exceptions. Having said all of that, though, I agree with my colleagues that the cited principle played only a small role in the decision that was reached; this is not a situation in which pulling out a single thread, even if a majority were inclined to do so, would unravel the entire skein of the decision. Therefore, I agree that if Tango wishes to regain adminship, he should proceed as outlined in the decision, such as by submitting a request to the committee giving us a basis for concluding that the issues that led to the termination of his prior adminship will not recur. I note that there has been a substantial change in the committee's membership since his case was decided, so any such appeal would be decided by largely fresh sets of eyes. Alternatively, if he prefers, Tango can submit a new RfA at any time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• I am concerned that you (Tango) do not voice anything in the above request that indicates any remorse or desire to conduct yourself in a different way. This then does not give me any faith that you will not act the same way if confronted with the same or similar circumstances if they should arise in the future. On brief review, I don't think my opinion is going to differ markedly from the judgement made at the time. Thus, you can either turn to RfA or submit a request as Brad outlines above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Scientology

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

• Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• So many other people, but God willing we do not need to list them all for this simple an issue.

Statement by Phil Sandifer

Given the sudden press attention on the Scientology case, including a Slashdot link and a Register article, I would like to request that all pages related to the case be courtesy blanked so as not to have people show up in search engines over this case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt the arbcom dragged a lot of people unrelated into the dispute into this case and sanctioned them, often in ways linked to real life identities. This was something I had considerable concern about at the time, and I still do. People who have not seriously edited Misplaced Pages in two years are named and sanctioned in the case, and the case is the subject of media attention. This goes to the heart of the "courtesy" aspect of courtesy blanking - there is no legitimate interest served in displaying the arbitration pages prominently in any way shape or form. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For my part, when I opted to edit Misplaced Pages under my real name several years ago, it was out of a sense that credentialed and published experts in subject areas ought edit Misplaced Pages openly - as an attempt to bring legitimacy to the project. At the time it was inconceivable that the arbcom would approach a case in the cavalier manner they did here. At this point, I regret greatly my decision to edit openly and under my real name, and feel like the project has greatly betrayed me as a long-time contributor. Yes, I assumed a certain measure of risk when I edited under my real name. But this goes well beyond what I had any reason to expect would happen. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the archive is still there. In practice, I take a several-stanced position on it. To my mind, sanctions that are intended for enforcement need to be publicly listed. I have long wished that the arbcom would stop issuing reprimands publicly, just because I do not think "shame" is an appropriate disciplinary mechanism. This case brokers new ground in this particular calculus because it adds the new wrinkle of enforceable sanctions against people who are functionally non-editors. This is something the arbcom cannot fix at this point, and is why I am appealing the case outright. But given the particularly high publicity of this one, I think a courtesy blank is in order. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FT2 - perhaps you will edit the advice to include "also the arbcom may decide to arbitrarily use their official powers to criticize you via a non sequitur that has nothing to do with any active case" to the cons of using your real name, then? I mean, that remains my primary issue here, and why I think even the final decision should be accessed via history instead of live - the arbcom explicitly issued sanction against users who *are not even active editors* under their real names. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MZMcBride

It seems a bit rude to deliberately interrupt links to content. Courtesy blanking usually has the effect of hiding the content to most users. "not to have people show up in search engines" ← As far as I'm aware, all Arbitration pages and subpages have been excluded from search engines for some time. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? I have absolutely no objection to removing the content from search engines, but deliberately obfuscating the content (esp. when we know people are trying to read it) seems to be the wrong path to take. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A few additional points I think should be considered, though I'm not particularly sure if this is an appropriate forum. In my opinion, at a minimum, all /Evidence subpages in all cases should be courtesy blanked following the conclusion of a case. The amount of garbage stored in them is unbelievable. This may or may not extend to /Workshop and /Proposed_decision subpages as well. (A broader discussion about this has been on my mental to-do list for some time.)

As to this specific case, and more generally to Final decisions, I think it's very important to consider the possibility of a mini Streisand effect by courtesy blanking any pages on our project. Right now, people can easily link to the pages on our site and our pages are kept out of search engines. If the pages are blanked, I think it increases the possibility of other sites either copying the entire contents or specific sections onto their own sites, where it increases exposure and puts the content into search engines. Just something to consider. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question by Rootology

Arb pages, as MZM said, are already excluded from all the ethical search engines that honor NOINDEX. What are the people referred to in "not to have people show up in search engines over this case"? If it's in regards to any editors that actively choose to edit under their own names... while it's unfortunate, any sanctions and the like picked up under their own names are their own responsibilities. If this happens, it could open a slippery slope leading back into WP:DR that may give "named" users inappropriate advantages in content editing, DR, the AC process, or any number of things. While I have no problem giving named people deference on things like {{indef}} tags on their user pages until we start NOINDEXing user space content, I dislike this on Arbitration related or DR-related content. If anyone is/was sanctioned/under sanction in some way, there is no reason to hide or minimize that. It's all public record for our processes. If we didn't NOINDEX this content, I'd have absolutely no objection to blanking it even myself. rootology/equality 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for Phil -- that's a good point, you just made. But I'm worried/wondering about this from the precedent standpoint, since no matter how much the AC says "we don't set precedent and we don't set policy", it's a fact that editors do interpret them that way and how it could trickle down to other situations in DR. Blanking itself is one thing, and I really don't have a problem with that in the general sense of the word--its just decent. But its the fact that it could lend obscurity to one's record, or cause something to be missed on later cases or situations as evidence. Have you ever had any other Arbcom findings go against you on your current user name (I haven't checked, you've been around for ages :))? rootology/equality 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As Phil didn't answer my open question of whether he has received Arbcom sanctions or findings vs. him before under User:Phil Sandifer, I wonder if this is--as he mentions--due to the press angle? If the finding is bad, and the decision is bad, I recommend the affected users appeal it normally. Hiding it, as Thatcher starts to say, due to "press" isn't a valid reason to hide anything. It will if anything just inflame things thanks to the usual problems that sort of thing causes. We're each of us responsible for our own actions here. If there is a problem with the AC decision, there is an easy way to fix that--appeal it in public. If the decision was bad, it can be overturned with enough community mandate. That's how things work. rootology/equality 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Thatcher

I would strongly advise against blanking the case pages en masse. I think some selective redaction or hiding of evidence and decision sections that mention real people might be appropriate. But the full decision (listing the rationale for the decision and the specific principles and findings) needs to be generally visible. Thatcher 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Cenarium

I agree that the main case page should not be blanked, at any rate not entirely; that page is now highly visible and linked from several newspapers; we ought not to deny those readers the reading of the case. For the reasons mentioned above and also because it's so rare when they can see the arcanes of Misplaced Pages... If needs be, specific findings of facts or remedies mentioning real names could be courtesy-blanked, e.g. "This remedy has been blanked as a courtesy.". For other case pages, I have no major objection, but in the same time, they are much less visible. Cenarium (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Shutterbug

To me this looks like the attempt to cover up a bogus "judgment" that ended up discriminating a certain group of Wikipedians, as some media correctly pointed out already. I would not recommend it. Shutterbug (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by FT2

This is a case that for better or worse has a higher profile (arguably) than any other before, and is already linked widely. The pages have already been NOINDEXed. If blanked, it conveys the message that a coverup or rethink is implied, which we know it doesn't mean, but it will be described that way.

Like all accounts created since 2005, the parties in this case will have been aware of the issue and were either clearly told the point to consider on signing up (or if they signed up before 2005 they have been around long enough to see how it goes and address the issue if they desired).

The account creation dialog has clearly stated for 3.5 years that users should be cautious in editing under an identifiable or "real life" name, including a link to Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Choosing a username. This is precisely to warn users of this kind of situation:

December 2005 wording	"See the pros and cons of using your real name."
From May 2006	"Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; see the pros and cons of using your real name."
From June 2007	"Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; editors who use their real names have sometimes been subjected to harassment. See the pros and cons of using your real name."
From April 2008	"Your username will frequently appear publicly on the site; editors who use their real names have sometimes been subjected to harassment. See the pros and cons of using your real name." and also: "Consider carefully if you wish to put personal information about yourself on Misplaced Pages (especially information that may enable someone to identify you). Generally there is no requirement to do this "

The warning has consistently become more forceful over time. Part of the reason for this is that once a user has been around enough to reach Arbitration, their username has been signed on many edits, and many talk pages, and we cannot realistically do much to help them beyond preventing spidering of the content. Another reason is that removing information on disruptive users is often disruptive or drama inspiring itself, and can lead to intense spiralling of the case (which would not have happened if the user was not editing under a "real" name). There is a limit to our ability to protect higher profile disruptive users, and it is around the point where that would itself risk being a disruptive or harmful action.

So we warn users not to do so, we explain the issues, we NOINDEX to prevent spidering, and we have for years encouraged users to choose a pseudonym to edit under if they have doubts. And in this case, I don't think we can blank the main case page. Our Workshop and Evidence pages have been blanked. But not the main case page and probably not the proposed decision that underpins it, or at least, not at this time.

FT2  11:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by JoshuaZ

Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand what courtesy blanking already NOINDEXed easily accessible material will accomplish. The people looking for this in detail will be able to go to the history already. This does nothing other than damage the appearance of transparency and make things slightly less transparent for those who aren't that familiar with Misplaced Pages. Given the large amount of coverage this case has achieved it is if anything more important that we achieve both transparency and an appearance of transparency in this case. This is true both for PR reasons and from a simple perspective of transparency being a good thing.

Has any specific user expressed concern about any of the pages in question discussing that user personally? If not, it seems very hard to justify this. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Please note that this is currently being discussed. Tiptoety 03:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I have no objection to courtesy-blanking all the case pages, with the exception of those portions of the final decision that involve principles and generic findings and remedies (as opposed to those naming particular individuals). In the meantime, however, note that all arbitration pages are designated "NOINDEX", meaning that they should hopefully not be showing up in search engine results in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• At this time, case pages other than the primary case page (and, by extension, the final decision itself) has been blanked as a courtesy to all involved. I could be persuaded to support blanking the initial statements as well, leaving only the decision directly viewable if my colleagues agree. However, the decision itself should not be blanked; both as a practical matter (since reference to it for enforcement is required), as a matter of process, and because of the very large number of external links now pointing to it given the current media attention. — Coren  01:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• In principle, I'm in favour of courtesy blanking everything (for all arbitration cases, not just this one) except the final decision (and indeed excising preliminary statements for that). However, some of my colleagues have opposing opinions based, reasonably enough, on transparency.  Roger Davies 09:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• In agreement with other arbitrators. As I've stated many times, I have no objection to courtesy-blanking the case pages on all cases, with the exception of the final decision. IMO, this approach should be used for all cases by blanking cases 2 weeks after the case closes. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Final decision should not be blanked as per my colleagues preceding, I am in two minds about other pages. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd be in favor of blanking the whole thing, and certainly everything besides final decision. There were a lot of real names tossed about, and not just of Wikipedians either. I wish this had been implemented the moment it closed. I think this case is unusual, however, I am not in favor of blanking across-the-board. Cool Hand Luke 07:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Fine with courtesy blanking in line with Newyorkbrad's proposal, but the final decision really does need to be accessible. Risker (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)