This is an old revision of this page, as edited by X! (talk | contribs) at 13:56, 26 May 2009 (→Statement by marginally involved Folantin: unlink). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Requests for arbitration

Moses of Chorene

Initiated by Grandmaster at 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Third opinion:
• Mediation proposed:

Statement by Grandmaster

This request results from the problems with the article Moses of Chorene, which is guarded by a group of users supporting certain POV, who prevent other users from including information they do not like. The dispute about the dating of ancient historian Moses of Chorene started in the article Sisak, with this edit by Marshall Bagramyan, which seemed to claim that the opinion of American historian Robert H. Hewsen about the dating of Moses of Chorene is not the mainstream view: . I looked into this issue and quoted at talk a number of prominent western experts, who shared the opinion of Hewsen, and made this edit: , which MarshallBagramyan revised like this: , claiming that the opinion of Hewsen was the opinion of minority. I rolled it back, asking for a source: , and made a clarification that there's a dispute about when Moses of Chorene lived: This last edit was reverted by MarshallBagramyan:

After this I did more research on the subject, and it became apparent to me that the majority of international experts date Moses of Chorene later than the 5th century. However the article about Moses of Chorene claimed 5th century dating as a fact, and the opinions of scholars who challenged this view were criticized. This is the version of the article that existed before I started editing it: It contained statements such as:

Up until the mid-twentieth century, many scholars doubted that Movses wrote the work in the fifth century due to historical inconsistencies, addressed him as "Pseudo-Movses", and moved him and the History to the seventh to ninth centuries. Stepan Malkhasyants, an Armenian philologist and expert of classical Armenian literature, likened this period to a "competition", whereby one scholar attempted to outperform the other in their criticism of Movses. Although these views have now been discredited and "much of this criticism has been rejected," there are still those who believe that Movses is not the true author of the work and criticize it heavily as a historical source.

1. Hacikyan et al. Heritage of Armenian Literature, pp. 305-306.
2. Malkhasyants. "Introduction" in History of Armenia, pp. 3-5.
3. Malkhasyants. "Introduction" in History of Armenia, p. 3.
4. Hacikyan et al. Heritage of Armenian Literature, p. 306.

As one could see, despite the dating being in dispute by the modern scholarly community, the article claimed that the later dating "has been discredited", etc. I made a few edits to fairly represent the alternative opinions: They were all reverted by MarshallBagramyan, removing the source that I cited: I restored my edits, and asked MarshallBagramyan at talk why he reverted my edits: MarshallBagramyan reverted again: , claiming that my edits were OR and weasel wording, and in his comment at talk rejected the scholars such as Hewsen, Cyril Toumanoff and Robert W. Thomson , who are all well known experts in Armenian studies. Quite interestingly that while accusing me of weasel wording, he himself included in the article quite questionable weasel statements, such as "there are still those who believe that Movses is not the true author of the work". I quoted a number of authoritative publications and authors (including Britannica ), and stated that the opinions of above scholars are notable and must be quoted in the article: Also, I noticed that users Folantin and dab were previously involved in editing of this article, so I notified them about the dispute, and asked them for help with dispute resolution: I was not familiar with these users before. Folantin commented: , and dab reverted MarshallBagramyan: and commented at talk: MarshallBagramyan commented, , and then Eupator made quite an incivil comment about dab: In the meantime time dab made a series of edits, trying to introduce the alternative position: , MarshallBagramyan reverted all of dab's edits: , Folantin restored them: , Eupator reverted: . dab made another rewrite in a few edits: , MarshallBagramyan reverted again: , dab rvd back:

According to the ruling of arbitration case Armenia - Azerbaijan 2, MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1rv per week parole because of edit warring: , which was logged here: After he made first 3 rvs I warned him about the violation: Despite that he kept reverting, so I filed an arbitration enforcement request here: , as result of which he was blocked for 2 days: Back from his block, MarshallBagramyan rewrites the article, essentially reverting it to his original version with minor variations, and deleting the info and sources that he did not like: I rolled back Marshall's edits: Gazifikator joins and reverts: , and is reverted by Paul Barlow: 91.103.31.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which appears to be Gazifikator who forgot to sign in, reverted back: This is when Nishkid64 protects the article. In the meantime there was a long discussion at talk of the article, where I provided numerous quotes from leading experts in Armenian studies, who said that the dating of Moses of Chorene was disputed, or that he lived later than the 5th century. Despite that, the discussion was stonewalled by MarshallBagramyan, Eupator and Gazifikator, and no progress was made. dab, Folantin and Paul B left the article.

I attempted dispute resolution, and asked for a third opinion. SimonP read the sources quoted at talk and provided a third opinion: After more than one month of discussions me and Marshall agreed on compromise version of the intro, and I agreed to drop the words "dating is disputed" to reach a compromise with MarshallBagramyan, despite other users insisting that the intro should say so: The only one objecting to this compromise was Gazifikator: After more than a month the article was unprotected, , and I included the intro that was agreed at talk: I waited another day, to see if MarshallBagramyan and Gazifikator would introduce the alternative opinions themselves. This did not happen, so I made a couple of changes to include the opinions of notable American experts who challenged the 5th century dating. In particular, I quoted Robert W. Thomson, a retired Harvard professor, who translated the work of Moses of Chorene into English. Considering that much space in the article is dedicated to criticism of this scholar by some obscure Armenian authors, it would be in line with WP:NPOV to fairly represent the position of the other side of the dispute and explain what Thomson actually says. My edits were immediately reverted by MarshallBagramyan, who accused me of edit warring and POV pushing. I don't understand how inclusion of sourced info from leading experts in Armenian studies could be considered POV pushing. I restored my edits, , however I was reverted by The Diamond Apex: , who was absent from discussion for about a month. Nishkid64 again protected the article at MarshallBagramyan 's preferred version. I made another attempt at dispute resolution, and proposed to request a mediation: Gazifikator refused: , and so did MarshallBagramyan:

As one could see, for about 2 months the article about Moses of Chorene has been in a deadlock. It is impossible to add any information to the article, if it does not conform with the opinion of MarshallBagramyan and Gazifikator. Third party editors are being driven out of the article by relentless edit warring, discussions are being stonewalled, and dispute resolution attempts are being sabotaged. It is a clear violation of WP:OWN and other policies. Thus, the arbitration is my last resort to resolve the problems with this article.

Statement by MarshallBagramyan

I'm going to make my thoughts brief and concise considering GM's gross need to grossly exaggerate the situation: I never opposed inserting alternative opinions and my opinion has been noted numerous times on Movses Khorenatsi's talk page. What I did oppose was the problematic wording that was being POV-pushed by Grandmaster and Dbachmann himself, who turned a fine article into a heap of rubble. I asked both users to not get carried away with their edits and to resolve all disputes diplomatically. What I got was a hurl of insults from an intolerant admin (dab) and edit-warring by GM. Less than a few hours after the article was unlocked, GM inserted controversial edits and has as of yet ignored each and every request to discuss his edits and it's extremely dishonest for him to portray himself as an innocent editor given his heavily-POV-laden edits. Movses Khorenatsi is perhaps the best known Armenian history and while I have refrained from saying so in the past few months, is also a visible target. It's all to clear that GM is over-emphasizing the dating issue to create a counterfeit controversy and has showed absolutely no interest on Movses' other details.

Thus, there's absolutely no need to waste everybody's time with another arbitration case. I invite GM to the talk to propose his wordings and we can insert Thomson's and Toumanoff's and anyone else's opinions to his heart's content, in a npov manner and with counter arguments, of course. Calling Armenian scholars "obscure", as if they are unqualified, is a rather amateurish attack by GM, for he would never make such an unprofessional remark if he saw how much Western scholars have benefited and profited from their sweat and labor over the past 40 years. The French article on Movses looks fine and I wouldn't mind seeing the English one resemble something like that. It's that simple. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Folantin

I'm commenting here because I've edited this article in the past. I removed it from my watchlist shortly after the dispute broke out because I was too busy dealing with problems elsewhere and it looked like it was going nowhere fast. Consequently, I'm unaware of the details of the talk page arguments (though I may look into them if this case goes ahead). What I can say is that my understanding of the content issue is that every modern English-language source I've come across puts the date of the history attributed to Moses of Chorene later than the traditional one of the 5th century.

If John Vandenberg's supposition about the cause of this dispute (the Sisak (eponym) article) is correct, then that's yet more depressing evidence that all too many editors are seeing every article about Armenia and Azerbaijan on Misplaced Pages through the lens of the territorial dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't see how this benefits the general reader. --Folantin (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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

• Recuse per User:Jayvdb/recusal#AA and because it seems like I instigated this mess by creating the article "Sisak (eponym)". As far as I can recall, my version was neutral, and I have stayed out of this dispute (I am more interested in poetry), but I wont object to being named as a party if someone can demonstrate I contributed to this dispute. Either way, I will submit a statement urging the committee to accept this case. John Vandenberg 06:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano II wheel war

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 13:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

Listed by the filing party

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Listed by Jehochman (talk · contribs)

• Prodego (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• David D. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• FlyingToaster (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to be addressed in a separate case if not resolved by ongoing discussions

Listed by Wizardman (talk · contribs)

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

Listed by Tznkai (talk · contribs)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Moni3 notified at . I will also inform all editors named in my statement of the existence of this request.  Sandstein  14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The dispute arises from the events detailed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Giano II blocked for civility issues; pertinent discussion is also at User talk:Moni3#The Giano matter.

The case involves wheel-warring (and, at , threats of blocks) among administrators. Per WP:Arbitration, the Committee will generally accept unusually divisive disputes among administrators without any previous formal dispute resolution measures being followed.  Sandstein  21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Flying Toaster RfA (this link will need to be updated when the thread is archived)

Statement by Sandstein

I ask the Committee to examine my conduct and that of my administrator colleague Moni3 in the dispute surrounding the blocks and unblocks of Giano II (talk · contribs) at the ANI thread linked to above.

At 20:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC), Prodego (talk · contribs) blocked Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three weeks for incivility. Extended discussion at WP:ANI ensued, where the preponderance of opinion – as I read it – supported the block. At 00:32, Giano II declared at that he has left the project, and has not edited since.

At 04:58, David D. (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked Giano II. This action was generally criticised in the ANI discussion, which led to David D. stating at that "if anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so.". Previously unaware of the dispute, I reinstated the original block at 09:12 after reading the thread, explaining why I did so at . At 11:36, David D. confirmed at that, having given his consent to being reverted, he would support my re-block.

At 12:20, Moni3 reduced the block duration of Giano II to 24 hours, explaining in pertinent part at that "I know it wheel wars, but I don't care. Seriously, folks. Get your priorities in order. Content is first always, and it makes people lazy to make decisions based on a string of bad words." She later added at that "consensus doesn't always rule over what is just and right."

After having asked Moni3 to undo her action (), which she declined (), I reluctantly ask the Committee to intervene with such remedies as it may deem appropriate, because it has repeatedly and rightly held that wheel warring is unacceptable, particularly when – as here – the administriative actions at issue are, by the wheel warrior's own admission, contrary to consensus.

I propose that the scope of this case (and any statements below) be limited to the administrative actions of Moni3 and I, and not also to the drama-ridden dispute between Xeno (talk · contribs) and Giano II which triggered these actions.  Sandstein  13:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The original block of Giano was excessive, punitive and wrong. I ask the committee to look into the entire matter of all those administrators who either blocked or unblocked Giano.

I also ask the Committee to look into the very serious allegations that User:FlyingToaster lied during her recent RFA. She claimed to have written a number of articles. Upon inspection it was found that many of these articles were either plagiarism or copyright violations. These accusations are extremely serious and the community is unlikely to resolve them because of deep divides and a lack of a de-sysopping process. The dispute over FlyingToaster's RFA precipitated Giano's excessive response. It does not make sense to arbitrate the reaction while ignoring the underlying dispute.

As for Xeno, that matter seems to be resolved and does not require arbitration. Xeno has apologized to Giano. I am very unclear why some people refuse to acknowledge that the block of Giano is no longer preventative. It seems that there is a strong element of retaliation against Giano for bringing the improper editing of FlyingToaster to light.

Thank you. I will add FlyingToaster and some other parties to the list. Jehochman 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of a matter before using tools. The sequence of events was that FlyingToaster had an RFA a few days ago. Giano raised concerns. Upon closer inspection, these concerns were found to be colorable. Various editors dismissed the concerns, causing Giano to become upset. Xeno then unwisely and unwittingly baited Giano very severely. Giano, predictably, exploded. The usual block-unblock cycle ensued. It would be foolish to only look at the last step in this closely related chain of events. Jehochman 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman, the wheel warring can be dealt with by motion, I believe. A stern warning or temporary desysop should suffice. The matter of FlyingToaster might be premature because there is a good chance she may resign. However, if she does not, we will be back with that matter in a few days. If you go forward with a case rather than a motion, you'd better include the entire dispute. Jehochman 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed motion

Only arbitrators or arbitration clerks may perform block or unblock operations on Giano's account.

Statement by Xeno

As the one who set this snowball rolling, I'm obviously feeling quite silly right now for this whole mess I inadvertently created. It's clear there's strong feelings about the blocks/unblocks/etc. I urged unblocking and took responsibility in part for Giano's comments made at me, thus the block no longer seemed necessary. I think all the administrators were acting in good faith and urge rejection of this case; imo no good can come of it. –xeno 14:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Juliancolton

What is the focus of this case? Giano's block? FlyingToaster's RfA? I'm confused... –Juliancolton |  14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ottava Rima

All blocks on Giano lead to admin fighting, wheel warring, and back and forth with the block buttons. If Giano sneezed, he would probably be blocked and have this situation happen. So, lets ignore what caused the situation. Instead, everyone should focus on the actions being 100% the same as every other time Giano is blocked. Is Arbitration needed? No, because ArbCom cannot affect the mindsets of tens of thousands of users that will play this very same role sometime in the future. It is inevitable. ArbCom should spend their time trying to stop things that they might actually be able to change - such as the Earth orbiting the sun, gravity affecting the planet, or that whole wacky "season" bs that we keep going through. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by TreasuryTag

I urge the Committee to reject the case, admonish those wheel-warring, re-instate the block for the ~20 days remaining (since the consensus seems to tend that way), invite Giano to return to active, co-operative and friendly editing once the block expires, and instruct everyone to accept FlyingToaster’s statement that she accepts she did some wrong unintentionally and means to fix it, and move on swiftly. Too much drama already. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Anonymous Dissident

(edit conflict) I agree that FT and related parties should be omitted, however, re: the "retirement" of Giano, I understand that he has permanently resigned from Misplaced Pages numerous times before, scrambling his password on more than one occasion. His announced departure this time shouldn't be treated as 100% gospel. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Stifle

As one of a very few users whose block of Giano has not led to an unblock or wheel war, I recommend rejection of this as it would serve to generate exponentially more heat than light. Giano is gone, some users have learned more about WP:C, and the wheel-warring, though tiresome, is moot. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Anonymous Dissident

Giano's gone, so this is flying on its own steam for no particular reason now. I also cannot comprehend the addition of FlyingToaster to the involved parties. This case concerns a wheel war over the blocking of Giano II. You may just as well add my name to the involved parties as the bureaucrat who closed the RfA. The line has to be drawn somewhere. —Anonymous Dissident 14:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Responses to Juliancolton and TreasuryTag

@JC: See Sandstein's clarification at 14:18. —Anonymous Dissident 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

@TT: Sure. Giano will probably come back. But I doubt if the situation will re-ignite when he does. —Anonymous Dissident 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Philippe

Giano's behavior was extreme, and the initial block was appropriate, in my opinion. Where we began to veer off the rails was the unblock, then reblock... it seems that perhaps the committee should step in and - yet again - make clear that we as a community will not tolerate incivility (in any of its forms) but will tolerate continued incivility even less. We also will not tolerate wheel-warring. It's sad that the committee has been put into this position again, but it appears that the lessons have not been learned. I urge the committee to accept the case and examine the behavior of those modifying the original blocks outside of consensus, as well as the behavior that precipitated this situation. - Philippe 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

Under Arbcom convention, established by decisions taken and cases rejected, the second action does not constitute wheel-warring, no matter whether it was done with or without discussion or consensus, it takes 3+ actions to make a wheel war. So, the reblock by Sandstein was potentially a wheel war, but since David gave his assent, it is not, and the counter resets. Since the block reduction by Moni was the second action in the new series, it was not wheel-warring either. Therefore, this was all perfectly acceptable and non-sanctionable admin behavior, according to Arbcom precedent. Just an ordinary day around the water cooler, nothing to see, move along.

Response to SlimVirgin

I absolutely do not agree with the current definition of wheel warring. I personally think that when one admin decides that his or her own judgement is so obviously superior and correct that it is acceptable to revert another admin without consultation or community consensus, that user lacks the qualities needed to be a good admin, at least at that particular time. However, I have previously filed a wheel-warring case, which was rejected because there was only one revert, and many similar cases have also been rejected. SlimVirgin's experience (and that of a few others I could name if I was not too lazy to look it up) shows that wheel-warring means the second action only if you are reverting an Arbitrator or Jimbo. In every other case I can recall, Arbcom has applied bold–revert–discuss, meaning the second action is not wheel-warring, and with the consequence that the reverting admin in any controversy is placed in a de facto superior position to the first admin. I think it stinks, hence the footnoted link (which was intended as a perhaps too subtle clue that I was not entirely on board with the situation as it stands.)

This is as good as place as any to make some general comments on administrator status:

1. It should be easily granted and easily removed.
2. Any admin who plaigarizes should be desysopped immediately, preferably by the stewards on the grounds of protecting the Foundation, then given a second RFA when the problems are corrected (preferably with the user's assistance).
3. Any admin who edit-wars should be removed for conduct unbecoming.
4. Any admin who baits another editor, no matter the provocation, should be removed for conduct unbecoming.

Whatever. Thatcher 02:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Presumably in the example you cite the community would come to a consensus pretty quickly. Thatcher 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by SlimVirgin

Response to Thatcher

Not wishing to comment on this case, as I don't know all the details, but regarding Thatcher's definition of wheel-warring, I was desysopped for six months for undoing FT2's block of Giano. Even though it was only the second action, and one undo, it was regarded as wheel-warring. SlimVirgin 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the one-undo definition of wheel-warring too, but I also disagree that anyone undoing an admin's actions without discussion is a poor admin. It's an important principle of adminning (or used to be) that we not follow the crowd like sheep. When you see an admin block someone they're involved in long-term disputes with, for example, it's important to unblock quickly, so that the point gets across. It follows from this that I also disagree with "grant it and remove it easily." Granting it should be tougher, but sensibly so. We currently give it to anyone who knows which one of 50 templates should be placed on the page of a vandal who has committed four offences but only ever on Tuesday afternoons. We pay almost no attention to whether they can edit, or have shown any common sense. SlimVirgin 02:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Aitias

After Giano II (talk · contribs) had been blocked by Prodego (talk · contribs) there was strong endorsement of that block on WP:AN/I, cf. . More important, there was extreme opposition to a block reduction, cf. and nothing near a consensus for it — much the opposite. Despite this obvious consensus for the block and the even more obvious consensus against a reduction/unblock, Giano II (talk · contribs) was unblocked by David D. (talk · contribs) — this already constituted wheel warring, and, more important, was against consensus. Therefore the block was reinstated by Sandstein (talk · contribs) in agreement with the unblocking admin. Again, this reblock was heavily endorsed, cf. . Then, Giano II (talk · contribs)’s block was reduced to 24 hours —again, despite the obvious consensus against a block reduction/unblock— by Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA): This clearly constitutes an egregious instance of wheel warring and was both completely out of process and acting against consensus. Therefore the original block should be reinstated by motion as soon as possible and a case should be accepted in the light of the egregious wheel warring. — Aitias // discussion 15:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SoWhy

The administrative conduct regarding this issue should be looked into but the FlyingToaster affair is nothing that fits into this situation at hand. The dispute between Xeno and Giano II was not about that, nor was any other discussion at ANI. I suggest to Jenochman and those who want the FlyingToaster situation at ArbCom to untangle it from this case and create a new request. After all, it's not only Giano II who raised those concerns and if they should be looked into, they should be considered separately. Everything else would be confusing. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Minkythecat

The FT affair is entirely relevant for this, and should be investigated; not purely for the plagiarism, a separate issue, but because it was the trigger point for the whole blocking debacle.

Giano made his views well known on FT at BN. Prodego asks Giano to be civil - not deeming that comment to be worthy of any action. Xeno then posts a taunting message aimed at Giano over a page Giano had re-written . Giano replies, civilly .

ONE minute after posting the above taunting Giano, Xeno started making a series of edits to the page in question, starting from . A page he hadn't contributed to previously. Some of the edits made the quality slightly poorer.

This, in my opinion, was nothing more than a deliberate, cynical attempt to bait Giano, knowing he'd react. The admin who banned him? Prodego. The whole sequence reads to me as either a concerted stitch-up or Xeno deliberately taking advantage of that "warning" by Prodego.

To state the FT saga on BN had zero to do with this is totally and utterly wrong. Xeno clearly baits Giano over a page, then makes edits to those page - most of which have been reverted.

If this whole issue is looked at, then the entire issue needs looking at - those particular comments on the FA discussion clearly paint a different picture to the "wah, nasty Giano abused me" story being presented by some. I do not believe the wheel warring can be examined without also examining the underlying cause for the block in the first place - namely the activities of Xeno and Prodego stemming from the FT thread on BN.Minkythecat (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

I think it's likely that the FT situation will need Arbcom resolution. However I think the course of wisdom would be to handle the cases separately. This case should start with the interaction between Giano & Xeno, the original block, and the later admin actions. This should be a nice clean case with a limited set of evidence. The FT situation is likely to be more complex and messy. For clarity that key issue should be handled separately free of the side conflicts that spun off.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Struck portion no longer needed per recent events--Cube lurker (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I originally thought and did decide that this was too controversial to join in discussion. However I've reconsidered and believe that while the ethics of the FT should not be acted on with this thread the committee should review them and the subsequent actions of those involved. If this thread is about wheel warring then there should be clear avenues to find out the cause. unfortunately that roots back to FT. Gotta look at the whole picture to understand things, sometimes just looking at whats convienant or on the obvious surface can lead to different insights. Xeno admitted they did things that was not Kosher and obviously Giano reacted so why add more fuel to that spent fire? Anyone rememebr high school algebra, how that one variable could flip an entire problem on it's head and make it a completely different issue, that's what we're dealing with here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by X!

I'm not sure why FlyingToaster's RfA is being brought up right here right now, but I'd like to say that this case is for Giano only. As for whether the original block was appropriate, I think that it was entirely appropriate. It doesn't matter how much content one can produce, if they're attacking other editors, then a block is needed. When David unblocked Giano, there was strong support for the block at ANI, but he still unblocked. After being reblocked, Moni reduced it to 24 hours again going against consensus at ANI. This is wheel warring. What else could it be? In conslusion, I would strongly urge the arbitrators to accept this case. This is just disgraceful, and higher action is needed. Xclamation point 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer

As the adage goes, the only consistent element in Giano's troubles is Giano.

Perhaps the arbcom will, for once, not be so cowardly as to ignore this fact, and ignore the shocking legacy of personal attacks and abuse from Giano, and to deal with the root problem that causes these cases to recur.

But I do not have high hopes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tznkai's wise invocation of belling the cat, the arbitrators ran for the position of cat-bellers, and were elected by the community to bell cats. Belling this particular cat is as simple as typing a few words into a web browser. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I may or may not muster the energy to say something more useful, seeing as I was one of the early responding administrators who tried to resolve this situation peacefully, but for now I have only this to say: Ban the lot of us (including the all of us making statements) for treating Misplaced Pages as a battleground. If this gets any more stupid before I get back to the computer, I may well turn in my bits. In the mean time, someone please:

• Fix the BLP that started this mess. (refs, copyedits)
• Work on a plagiarism standard for the tangentially related but still important issue.
• And the other boring low drama work that no-one else (myself included in this case) will do.
• Anyone who has a brilliant solution to this mess, please read bell the cat. Its informative to how you look to others.

Also, next time anyone wants to step in and block or unblock in something that looks like it could be a wheel war, it is a wheel war. Don't do it, it isn't worth it. Exhaust every other tool in your disposal, call in favors, e-mail the damned committee. --Tznkai (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One more important point. We (the administrators) are a team damn it! Lets act like it for once!

I fully stand behind everything Cenarium said, and MastCell's analysis below.--Tznkai (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for clerks Please consider reverting this edit as off topic and a policy violation.--Tznkai (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For Coren:

While I appreciate that you are gung-ho about clarifying these very important issues, a case by its nature examines the specific conduct of specific users in specific incidents, making it impossible to focus on just those questions.--Tznkai (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Pastor Theo

As someone who participated in the AN discussion of this case, I seem to recall that consensus was overwhelmingly supportive of the blocking action only among the admins. Non-admins who offered their observations pointed out a double standard – that the non-admin Giano was being blocked while the admin Xeno was not being blocked, even though both behaved poorly in this situation. The division between admins and non-admins is amplified by the statement prior to mine, where admins are defined as “a team” – does that make the non-admins spectators in the cheap seats? Aren’t we all on the same team?

It also needs to be pointed out that Xeno specifically requested that Giano be unblocked while this drama was playing and that he has repeated the request here. I would second that motion and ask that this case be dismissed as a misunderstanding that went out of control.

As for Flying Toaster – that’s another case. Pastor Theo (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Respectfully request removal of FlyingToaster's name. At the present time she is working hard at reviewing and correcting the citations and related text at articles she created before her RfA. Getting named in a tangential arbitration would likely slow down that effort. If a case is going to arise over her RfA, would be much better all around to request it separately. Durova 16:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cenarium

This situation reflects again a persistent disorder affecting Misplaced Pages administration, instead of trying to compromise and find amicable solutions, or simply dropping the matter when nothing positive for Misplaced Pages in one sense or the other will come, it's infuriated and artificially made worse. Another related problem affecting Misplaced Pages administration is the "on diff" enforcement policy, that is, sometimes policies are enforced, e.g. a block of an editor, based on a single diff, without consideration and attempt to resolve the broader situation to prevent continuation of policy violations, and analysis of the behavior of other parties. Some would be surprised to see that it can work, if tried, and can have better results, especially in the longer term. Yet another problem are some users who comment at ANI without analyzing the situation, or with comments which cannot generate a consensus (to put it mildly). I heard for example "good block", and I wonder how a block can be good, especially when it's against a productive article writer, a block may be "within admin's discretion", "necessary in this case", but not "good". As for the unblock, I would say it was unwise, but not done forcefully, as the unblocking admin consented to be overturned, which happened. Now, for the block reduction, Giano is retired, so what's the point to have him blocked, or not ? If reimplemented or made longer, would it be purely for the sake of blocking or for, then, a virtual enforcement, or as punishment ? The reduction can be understood, as a courtesy or sympathy from another article writer feeling Giano was treated unfairly by Xeno, and that the block was excessively long. Should really Moni3 be pursued overt this ? I thought we had no military rules over here, can't we be done with it, now ? It's certainly not a wheel war, at this time, requiring arbitration. I don't see what can be achieved through the acceptance of this case, so I urge rejection. Cenarium (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Please don't take this case. No good will come of it. Enough damage has been done. Sandstein, Moni3, and David D. are all good admins. If a case is opened, it will involve a lot of verbiage and no more than admonishments, at most. In a best case scenario, it will be a distraction. In a more likely scenario, we'll lose or alienate more good people. If you want a technical rationale for declining it, you can use Thatcher's. Addendum: Apparently my sarcasm detector was malfunctioning. Thatcher was being facetious. I am embarassed. MastCell  17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre

Prodego should've really known better to block Giano before bringing it to the community first. Xeno should've known better not to poke the bear. A day might've been warranted, but three weeks is excessively punitive. Sceptre 18:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tex

Agree with the above. No good can come of this case. Xeno shouldn't have provoked Giano, Giano shouldn't have gone overboard with his response, Prodego shouldn't have blocked for 3 weeks and someone should have reduced the block length to a more appropriate level. I, for one, congratulate Moni3 for having the moxie to do what others would not. This case was only brought here because of hurt feelings. Meanwhile we have lost a wonderful writer.

Statement by William M. Connolley

• Prodego's original block was good. Arbcomm should confirm this, and state clearly that WP:CIVIL applies to us all.
• David D.'s unblock was bad, and arbcomm should tell him so, since he does not yet seem to have admitted it. It was also arguably wheel warring; arbcomm should clarify whether it was or not.
• Sandstein's re-block was good. Arbcomm should confirm this. Since DD had said "if anyone wants to revert my action they are free to do so." it seems likely that S's re-block wasn't wheel-warring, but for the sake of clarity Arbcomm should confirm this.
• Moni3's reduction to 24h was bad, and clearly wheel-warring, as she knew at the time. Arbcomm should consider a sanction such as loss of adminship for a month, and indicate their disapproval by restoring the block.
• FT's RFA is important, but not to this case.

If you're not aware of my prior history, then you may wish to see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley.

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MZMcBride

Jesus Christ. Another Giano case? Either work to improve the encyclopedia or kindly leave. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

General ramblings of a madman by Nick

Could Arbcom please state why we are all supposedly here - is it to write an encyclopedia, to indulge in petty bureaucracy or engage in vexatious litigation ?

Surely enough damage has been done to the community, a very experienced content contributor has left, there's the possibility of administrators facing sanctions and there is significantly more bad blood and animosity now than there was as a result of Giano's comments, so what's the best course of action in these circumstances, following the rules to the letter, or ignoring the rules for the benefit of the community. Nick (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

Pardon me for interupting, and I realize that I don't I have the tenure to be posting to 'crat boards outside any items which would directly involve me. However, I was hoping to mention an item that I hoped everyone would consider.

The entire Giano incident (the current one), seems to me to stem from the interactions of Xeno and Giano. As I understand it, and I've done some extensive reading over the last couple days, their communication revolved around edits to the article: Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer. I looked through the article history, and have not found any edits by User:FlyingToaster in that article. I also reviewed the thread on Xeno's talk page #Madame_la_Comtesse! here, once again I see no comments by or about FT, and in fact, no mention of FT up to and including the discussion of the block in any manner. My point is: The fact that someone may, or may not, have been upset due to some recent (and unrelated) event, doesn't seem to me to be a reason to pull an editor into an RFAR case of wheel wars. If I were to be having a disagreement with User:ABC on article 123. And at a later time violated a policy such as NPA or CIV while talking to User:XYZ about article 789 - then the item which should be evaluated would be my interactions with XYZ. If I wished to open a separate thread or discussion about ABC, fine, but it is a separate matter.

That's not an opinion on whether or not there should, or should not, be a RFAR on the FT RfA. That is not my place to opine one way or the other. That's also not any reflection on any editor here, I have the utmost respect for all the people involved, and truly believe that everyone is only attempting to make Misplaced Pages a better website. Personally, I'd like to see all these matters dropped, and everyone just get back to other tasks - but, I realize that may not happen. Either way, as others have more eloquently stated, they really are two separate items, and I think that dealing with either in any way other than individual RFARs would only confuse both issues. Thank you for your time, and Best to all. — Ched :  ?  21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the timing, it appears that the FT RfA is now a moot point. — Ched :  ?  21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request Statement by Rootology

Can we please get a Checkuser or three to review this followed by a swift 30 day block and a desysop if an admin did this? rootology (C)(T) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please reject this case, in hindsight, and also please have the AC start a very broadly advertised RFC to define Wheel Warring and the 'standing' of admin actions once and for all by the Community. We all have various and in some cases smart, but in some cases ridiculous standards. Some people even seem to think that any lone admin action is irreversable, which is preposterous in any sense of, well, anything. I am prompted to ask this because of GWH's statement below, "We have avoided putting too much process in place at WP:WHEEL to avoid creeping bureacracy". That's exactly what we DO need. We run around with some many now-irrelevant (and in some cases dangerous to our mission as it stands in 2009) wikipuritanical ideals that the lack of hard definitions of what admins can do with each other's actions barring IAR that every single solitary time this comes up (not specifically with Giano), we all stand around like buffoons, spout our unique views on WP:WHEEL, and then sling our own muck at each other as we turn into administrative baboons for a few minutes.

We need to come up with a formal, BUREACRATIC definition of what this mystical "Wheel War" truly is, and to what degree admin actions are sacrosanct. I just protect User:Giano II today. If someone unprotects that, is it a Wheel War? If I block someone today, and Admin #2 unblocks them, and I reblock, is it a Wheel War? What if Admin #3 reblocks? Ask 10 admins and you'll get 4-5 answers in all likelihood. If one of them dislikes the other, they'll give another answer to be contrary. AC: Start the RFC, keep it simple--what is a wheel war, and what actions can/should/how be undone if places by another admin? The winners move onto a simple poll--again, that's the only way we'll get fixed consensus. The 'crats can close it down afterwards. Reject this case, set that course--the Arbs should not decide what a Wheel War is--all of us together should, once and for all, and this is the only reasonable way to do it. No admin, except one who wishes to have some leverage or leeway or that perceives he has "power" which he does not, should be against firm definitions finally existing of what an admin cannot do. We have such limits on 'crats, Arbs, Checkusers, Oversight... it's time we did too. Please do this, AC. rootology (C)(T) 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

I am concerned particularly here by the standards at which wheel warring is defined. I believe an Arbcom case clarification would be helpful.

We need to have a useful and usable administrators standard for the level of care that administrators are expected to use when reversing each others decisions. What we're getting are a long sequence of bad cases to set precedent under - where there are conflicting underlying facts, and everyone is clearly acting in good faith - but in which ultimately administrators have repeatedly reversed each other with poor communications before the administrator action.

Thatcher's comments above constitute a justification to avoid following this thread of reasoning, but I believe that evades the underlying problem here. It is a problem not that administrators are reversing each other, but that they aren't taking due care in discussion and consensus prior to the reversals.

David D. did not actively participate in the discussion prior to unblocking, did not notify the blocking administrator prior to unblocking, and admitted that he had done so ( ex ). He admitted that consensus appeared to be against the unblock at the time.

Sandstein reblocked, also without prior participation in the discussions ( ). He stated that administrator consensus appeared to be that the unblock was improper, but did not notify the unblocking adminstrator prior to the reblock or notify the noticeboard prior to the reblock and seek further specific input or discussion.

Moni3 did comment in the ANI discussion about 14 hours before reducing the block duration - but did not reengage in discussion on ANI or discuss with Sandstein prior to the block length reduction.

I think that there are valid underlying questions on both sides regarding the conduct, provocation, circumstances, etc. There's been plenty of discussion on all these points. However, even with a blatantly wrong administrator action, our expectations of collegial behavior within the administrator community are that we would consult the initial or immediately prior administrator to at least advise them, and ask for input, and also with the community.

We have avoided putting too much process in place at WP:WHEEL to avoid creeping bureacracy - but what that's meant is that we now have too little process in place to encourage tired or frustrated admins to do the right thing and talk things out sufficiently prior to undoing or redoing each other's actions. Even a blatantly factually correct reversal is wrong if we don't respect the earlier admin(s) or community enough to involve them in the change.

I will take this up within the community context if Arbcom choses not to - but I believe it's ripe for exploration in a case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved TML

Having observed many of Giano's previous "departures," I can no longer take his "departure" announcements at face value. As such, I would definitely not be surprised if he returns to regular editing sooner or later, as that has always been the case in the past. TML (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Prodego

I'll spare you of hearing my disappointment that what was a productive discussion came to this. I will note though that the block on Giano is not stable. If this case is declined, I am not sure what will happen with that block. Administrator consensus does not seem to stop admins from changing it, perhaps arbcom's would. Prodego 03:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jennavecia

I was the admin pointing out the double standard of Scarian getting a one hour block for notation in his block log and Giano getting three weeks. This whole situation is a big ball of fail. I don't even know where to begin. The project is to build an encyclopedia. Being as anyone can edit, we have users of all different everythings. This includes some brats, some stupid people, some grumpy old men, etc. (Aimed at no one in particular). The thing is, you can't expect all these people to get along all of the time. Some of them ever. It's human nature, and there's nowhere on this project to argue freely. So, of course, people will snap. Giano's gotten a raw deal with too many bad blocks, to the point that the legit blocks become an issue. A key thing to remember is our purpose. We're here to build an encyclopedia. The most important aspect in that is content creation and improvement. Few people produce higher quality content than Giano. He snaps off on people... big deal. If the drama-mongerers were spending less time drama-mongering and more time improving content, there wouldn't be an issue.

How about this, ArbCom: Accept the case, assume Giano will return, as he (thankfully) always does, and put forth something that says Giano isn't to be blocked without consensus among admins following a block request by the person he flipped out on. In a case such as this, where Xeno baited Giano, Giano flipped out and upset Prodego's delicate sensibilities, we should not see a block. Much less a block for three damn weeks. How is that preventative? Really? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of allowing punitive blocks, but come on. Three weeks for one of our most prolific content creators because he allowed himself to be trolled?

People need to take a step back, look at the big picture, and refocus. The project doesn't need civility police. Three words: Get over it. It's not all rainbows and butterflies in the real world, and Misplaced Pages shouldn't be expected to be any different. لennavecia 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, let me add that I agree with everything Thatcher said. Brilliant as always. لennavecia 03:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Request by Rx StrangeLove

I hope this request is accepted. There may be some grey area in what constitutes wheel-warring in general but in this case there's no doubt that wheel-warring took place. This may (or may not) be the time to address those grey areas, but this is the only time to address the current and specific cases of administrative wheel-warring.

That's not an acceptable way to advance an admins preference in a dispute. If you reject this, wheel-warring becomes to some degree more acceptable. Reject this and you are sending a message that wheeling warring is a viable option if you have a few vocal supporters and can lash together some sort of rhetorical argument that you weren’t really wheel-warring at all.

You don't have to make "case law" here if you don't feel the time is right, but you do need to address specific and clear cases of admins conducting (and in at least one instance admitting that they are participating in) wheel wars.

Comment by periodically involved Protonk

Please accept this case. The committee and the community have tolerated wheel warring for too long when it comes to blocks of well known editors. We have to honestly come to some reckoning that one major component in the drama surrounding those editors is the sense that blocks will be quickly reversed. I don't mean to say that editors who get blocked are necessarily emboldened by this eventuality, but those involved in the jostling and arguing on AN/I would be less inclined to do so if blocks were more set in stone. Admin actions should be given some protection from immediate reversal, barring obvious misconduct (and none of these cases have been obvious misconduct). Either we have trust in admins to act responsibly or we don't. That decision doesn't get to be made by some other admin who happens to be on and happens to disagree with a block. If the arbs fail to enforce this then we will see more of it.

Also for the record, three weeks wasn't excessive. Giano knew better and did it anyway.

Update because I don't think anyone mentioned it

FlyingToaster has resigned adminship. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler

To the limited extent that this case is about the behaviour of Sandstein, I request suggest that Arbcom also look at patterns in his behaviour. I first became aware of this admin in connection with this incident, and everything I have seen subsequently seemed to confirm my initial impression that he behaves like a legalistic, thoroughly uninterested and irascible judge, rather than as a volunteer who sees his purpose in facilitating the construction of an encyclopedia.

And after this recent discussion between Sandstein and Bishonen, Sandstein was just about the worst admin to reblock Giano. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Dank

I understand that ArbCom is busy, but it would be nice to get a little guidance on when admins should jump in and block or unblock a "regular" when it's known that a lot of people will support and a lot of people will oppose such a move. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to committee members voting not to take the case on the theory that the community needs to talk about changing policy: how can the community know if a different policy is needed, if we don't know what rulings result from the current policies? - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Gimmetrow

There seems to be disagreement among admins about what constitutes wheel warring. There is a need for clarification here. Gimmetrow 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Eubulides

As I understand it, the wheel-war rules attempt to prevent an editor from being blocked without consensus. That is, after a controversial block and unblock, no further block is supposed to occur without some consensus. However, if Moni3's unblock is interpreted to be the 3rd action that makes this series of events a wheel war, then it would become trivial to block a user even without consensus; all it would take would be three administrators A, B, and C in the minority who want to block somebody. A blocks; B unblocks but says "anybody can reblock"; then C reblocks. Any ruling finding that Moni3's action is part of a wheel war would have to be written very carefully so as to prevent the abusive hypothetical case I describe. I do not intend to imply that such abuse occurred here; only that it will be hard to distinguish such abuse from what happened here. Eubulides (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by harej

ArbCom: This is clearly a recurring issue. I advise you find the root of the problem and go after it. That is all. —harej (EQUALITY!) 21:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Edict by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

It looks like Arbcom may take this case. I think that's a bad move, but if you're going to do it, then do it. Let's not have another long drawn out case that ends in a bunch of "admonishments" or "advice" that nobody pays any attention to (or worse, that they misinterpret in whatever way suits them).

As has been said before the only constant in the last 53 episodes of the Giano soap opera is... Giano. So let's focus on Giano (not taking his n retirement any more seriously than his (n-1)). Kicking him off the project would be a political non-starter even if there was merit in doing so, and I'm not proposing there is. The only logical course is to make explicit what is already de facto policy: different rules apply to Giano than to everyone else. No admin should be able to block Giano without the prior concurrence of Arbcom. Does this mean Giano is more likely to get away with incivility? Yeah, but it's better than going through all this stuff time after time.

So, if you take this case, get to the root of the matter. Otherwise let's plan to meet back here in a few months, same time, same station. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on "Wheel-warring" by Deacon of Pndapetzim

The policy page on wheel-warring is somewhat clear and reasonably stable. The way it reads now is that an admin who unblocks is not wheel-warring unless another admin reblocks; it is unclear whether or not the unblocking admin retroactively has his/her action classified as wheel-warring, but the reblocker's actions certainly are. So the only person definitely wheel-warring is the reblocker. This is the stable policy-page definition. During the SlimVirgin drama some users tried to change the definition there so that Slim's actions became policy page defined Wheel-warring, but this got reverted..

We have to remember that "Wheel-warring" is a made-up wiki-term, the definition of which could only ever be set through usage by wikipedians, shaped although definitely not determined by the relevant policy page. Like civility and many other such policies, its day-to-day ambiguity enables stronger wikipedians to utilise their superior social strength against weaker users. So you can accuse an admin of wheel-warring if you don't like his decision. The accusation of wheel-warring is respectable if you are strong and well-connected. Nothing better illustrates this than the User:Malleus Fatuorum wheel-war. User:Aitias blocked Malleus for a personal slight (which was also incivility), User:Ddstretch unblocked him 10 minutes later, then 8 minutes afterwards User:Coren reblocked. Seemingly lacking any self-awareness and perhaps emboldened by his recent accession to arbitrator status, Coren ironically castigated Ddstretch for "wheel-warring". The reblock stuck, but Ddstretch resigned as an admin and left wikipedia.

In this particular case, Giano II's I mean, hours had already passed and consensus, such as there was, was against unblocking; so, with other wikipedian norms in mind, it's hard to argue that Sandstein wrong. It was wheel-warring, but it wasn't wrong. If everyone wants "wheel-warring" to remain a term that is totally negative, as appears to be the case, then everyone ought to agree that the definition of wheel-warring ought to be altered to exclude reinstating a block that was lifted against consensus. But if you do that, the policy will become even more ambiguous and thus be more useful to stronger wikipedians than normal ones. I guess that's just how life rolls. Perhaps the best thing to do is declare that "Wheel-warring" is OK in certain circumstances, but not in others (defined thereafter). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment on two points raised above, by uninvolved FT2

Contrary to SlimVirgin's claim under "response to Thatcher", SlimVirgin was not in fact desysopped for "wheel warring" (as she implies), nor was she taken to Arbitration for "wheel warring", nor is the statement "Even though it was only the second action, and one undo, it was regarded as wheel-warring" an accurate description of the Committee's view. In fact SV was desysopped

"...Because of her disruption of the arbitration enforcement process, her continuing assumptions of bad faith towards her fellow administrators, and in light of numerous prior warnings related to conduct unbecoming an administrator..."

From memory, a past criticism of SlimVirgin on more than one occasion at RFAR was that she has at times presented either misrepresentation, selective description, or bad-faith interpretation as "evidence". The cites for this are in that same RFAR case; I don't think I will rehash them here.

In regard to Moni3, this edit caught my eye. Content generation relies upon a background understanding of collegial working habits. They are not peripheral or a minor detail. As an administrator, Moni (and users in general) should understand that quality of working environment is a wiki pre-requisite and highly beneficial for quality content work by a large scale volunteer community, and not just perpetuate an "admin vs content" worldview. We're all here and in this together and for the same goals, mutual respect is needed including for other users who legitimately may expect admins to maintain the working environment when it is disrupted.

FT2  00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/9/0/0)

• Accept on the wheel warring matter. It sounds like Jehochman wants the FlyingToaster situation added into this as well, and I don't think the two issues have enough in common to warrant being mulled together, so I wouldn't have that in the case's scope. Wizardman 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept per Wizardman.  Roger Davies 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept Deja vu. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Please accept as a given my distaste for many aspects of the last couple of days' developments. However, the issues concerning the RfA of Flying Toaster are moot, and I do not believe that an arbitration case on the blocks and unblocks in the fashion framed is likely to produce a useful result. I acknowledge that debate goes on as to whether undoing another administrator's action constitutes wheel-warring or uncollegiality, or whether it is only reinstating the original action that officially commences the wheel war, but I would leave this issue for another day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • With regard to the definition of wheel warring on blocks and unblocks in general, I have tried to parse some of the confusion in this area. I will post my thoughts on this issue on the talkpage, though perhaps they belong on a subpage or a policy page or a policy RfC somewhere, someday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept; I see three questions raised by the incident that need answering. (a) What is wheel warring? (b) Are there cases where what would otherwise be strictly construed as wheel warring is justifiable (especially when consensus is factored into it)? (c) Is the current incident a case of wheel warring and, if so, was it justifiable? The Committee has, correctly, stated in the past that wheel warring isn't acceptable— but the uncertainty and lack of consensus within the community itself of what is — or is not — acceptable is a contentious issue in itself. A case here would need to focus exclusively on those three questions. — Coren  01:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - the underlying problem that caused this mess has been resolved. Improvement of policy can be done without our involvement; we have other things to do. John Vandenberg 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctantly Accept per Coren's reasoning above on wheel-warring, given the doubt. Firmly decline to expand this to include FT, and restrict to discuss action of wheel-warring alone and even leave Giano as peripheral. swtiched to Decline as issue has died a death anyway and a poor use of time. Issue on wheel warring may be best discussed by the community on the wheel warring talk page or RfC of same. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline - was going to comment at length on the events that transpired here, but enough has been said on that already. The Flying Toaster aspect is moot. Xeno's self-block is an admission that he is aware he didn't handle himself well here. Giano is gone, for now at least. All that is left is to clarify wheel-warring. I would urge discussion of the points raised by Brad elsewhere, with the aim of getting agreement on how admins should interact and deal with situations like this in a collegial manner, and coming to some compromise, rather than digging in on either side of a dispute in a partisan manner. One other point: in incidents like this, please do make sure someone pays attention to any article that has been affected. In this case, the article in question (a BLP) had fact tags left on it for nearly four hours, and it was another three hours before anyone addressed the text that was disputed. All that time, discussion was raging at ANI and on user talk pages. If this was about producing an encyclopedia and improving articles, then this was an epic fail. Carcharoth (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Accept to consider all the sysop actions taken. --bainer (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Mulling this over leads me to decline. As noted above FlyingToaster has resigned adminship. The cacophony of administrative actions which followed after Giano's incivility were certainly not the project's finest hour but I do not see in them the sort of 'exceptionally divisive dispute among administrators' which would make a fit subject for a case. Xeno's self-block indicates that he has learned something and I trust those others involved have done too. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Accept -- FayssalF - 17:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. Flying Toaster has resigned her adminship, so that point is moot. None of the administrators who took action in this situation is particularly known for their controversial actions, so anything stronger than an admonishment is unlikely. I'd suggest they each take the time to read over the last four months of decisions of this Committee vis-à-vis administrator actions and take those under consideration if in future they consider becoming involved in situations that are likely to be controversial. Per Newyorkbrad, I do not foresee a useful result on the case framed here. Risker (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, per Brad and Risker. Kirill  01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline, per Carcharoth, Newyorkbrad and Risker. Additionally, I find the points raised by MastCell, Thatcher, and Xeno to be persuasive. On the matter of clarifying the definition of wheel warring (and its practical application), that is certainly a matter for the community. If a policy is unclear or a matter of some disagreement among the admins, the standards means of discussion and rules improvement should be utilized. --Vassyana (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Reject. The issue of "one admin reviewing the block of another admin and then adjusting the it" needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive way than this case will allow. It is possible that a ruling in this case would adversely effect the admin and blocking policy since it focuses on the details of one instance rather than the overall general practices related to block reviews. An RFC about block reviews is needed instead of a case. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

Initiated by Brendan19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Brendan19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mike Doughney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mattnad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anarchangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soxwon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Firestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Writegeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GreekParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ironholds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• i am sure there are many more, but i just cant list everyone

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• , . ,
• and most in depth and most recent, this RfC on him...
• this sums up my experience and my attempts to get help...

Statement by brendan19

1st, my apologies if the format/style/etc is incorrect here in any way. never done one of these before. many editors have had many similar problems with User:collect- namely edit warring , improper use of policies to suit his needs at the time, gaming the system, ididnthearthat, making proveably false claims about other editors -where he accuses me of being a sock, pov editing to give a right wing view (-shows he wants an older less appropriate source because it says what he wants it to say.), and just generally causing problems (getting articles and himself blocked from editing for a while and getting into arguments/disagreements with many editors). all of this is easily seen in the RfC . what you will note is that the RfC was completely unsuccessful because collect refused to take suggestions, examine his own behavior, take responsibility for said behavior/explain it, and instead collect systematically tried to discredit and attack every one of the editors he perceived as being against him. he then posted this which seemed to suggest he was Alice being tried before a crazy group of people from wonderland. he also said he would be going on a wikibreak (so he wouldnt participate in the RfC any longer) and proceeded to continue editing every day since then (save 2) with over 500 edits since then. i feel like we tried to get him to change his behavior and got nowhere with him. he is an experienced editor and in the past has only responded to things like getting blocked (see his block log). please take a look at the RfC and see what i am saying or feel free to listen to some of the other editors. thanks Brendan19 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statement by Vassyana

appears to be a 2nd revert. is possibly more than 1rr, its hard to tell because he keeps making edits like this again and again which are consistently changing the same info, but im not sure it counts as a revert. this is a second revert on the same day on jtp . here is another 2nd revert w/in 24 hours on another republican which came after this 1st revert . and i am going by the definition, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." these two are w/in a 26 hour period, but i believe that shows gaming the system and not truly trying to abide by his promise not to edit war- . after trying to remove the section- he then 2nd reverts here by only removing parts of the section- and this was after this revert- . the following definitely show that he violated his promise... and , along with and . thats as far as i looked, i dont know if there are more. i would also like to say that i have seen collect apologize twice before this, on the 11th of december and the 3rd of march ( and ). like now, he was then apologizing because he was in trouble and seeking to get out of it. a look at the most recent RfC will show that there were no apologies until we reached the point where we are now (again he apologizes when in trouble). this makes me believe these apologies and promises to change are only brought about by actual binding restrictions on his editing. thats sad, but i think it shows that if we further ignore his behavior we will find ourselves in this situation again. if i hadnt started this request for arbitration the last words we would have heard from collect on the most recent RfC would be these accusations, conspiracy theories and other mudslinging- quite a difference from what weve seen here. basically, my point is that there is a pattern of problems with collect that seem to keep slipping through the cracks because each one on its own may not be such a big deal to various admins. taken as a whole, i hope the pattern is visible here and i hope we can correct it. Brendan19 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statement by newyorkbrad

as i have shown above, collect has in the past demonstrated that he may not always follow through with his promises. he violated his 1rr on more than one occasion. you suggest holding off on a request for arbitration to see if he will follow through this time. my problem with that is what happens when he breaks his promise days, weeks, or months down the road. to reach this stage of dispute resolution takes a long time and a lot of work on all our parts. i have been editing on wikipedia for years now and i have never pushed for something like this on a single other editor until now. i have seen too many slaps on the wrist (warnings, edit blocks, and many articles shut down for edit wars) followed with broken promises by collect. i believe if we followed your suggestion that collect would be on his best behavior until this process is finished and perhaps for some time after that. then i believe the zebra's stripes would reappear. the only way i can imagine for your suggestion to work is if we set some date in the distant future to reevaluate collect's editing- im talking about a year or so. if he can remain civil and keep from edit-warring and doing the other behaviors mentioned in the RfC for more than a year then i believe the problem will have been solved. if within that year he goes back to his old behavior then i suggest we make some way to come back here and do something about it. i know that sounds complicated and thats why i think we ought to just go through with the arbitration now. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Soxwon

I was involved with an edit-war with Collect on Drudge Report. Afterwards we worked out our differences and resolved the situation. I found working with Collect that although he can be a bit frustrating, overall he is trying to improve the encyclopedia. I also feel that the RfC was flawed as it was conducted in an inappropriate manner (Collect's history was searched for possible violations, which were then used as "evidence"): , , erroneous charge made based on "evidence". They also used the Drudge Report as evidence without talking to any of the parties involved (Fascism only one person, Introman). It was only after I brought it up and started contacting other users that Ratel and The Four Deuces were brought in (I myself found out through Collect's talkpage and had I not seen it, they may have never even talked to anyone involved w/Drudge). This behavior might explain Collect's Alice response. Soxwon (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

Collect has edited a number of articles on political subjects. He has strong opinions and at times he has butted heads with other users that also have strong opinions. Certainly edit warring is not the way to solve problems, but IMHO there's nothing here that's so unusual that it needs arbitration. If future conflicts appear uninvolved admins have the tools to deal with one or both sides of the conflict. No need to replay that sub-optimal RFC/U on the workshop pages here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to NYB

I didn't believe an arbitration case was needed in the first place, but that belief is only strengthened by Collects statement. I believe all that a case would accomplish is sound and fury about past content disputes that are best left in the past. (See RFC). What would be the goal of arbitration that hasn't already been accomplished by Collect promising to use non-warring ways to deal with future content disputes?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statement by GreekParadise

If the arbitrators are wondering why the RFC was less then productive I believe you'll find the full version if GreekParadise's statement informative. This sort of invective was commonplace as opposed to the RFC being a rational discussion of how to solve the situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ironholds

I don't consider myself an involved party, and I would advise the clerks/an uninvolved editor to trim the list of involved parties. I've not been involved in any of the articles Collect has been accused of edit-warring in, my only involvement was to comment on the RfC, which I don't think really makes me a party to the dispute itself. Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ferrylodge

My experience has been that Collect is a skilled and reasonable editor. I haven't seen any behavior on his part that would rise to the level of an ArbCom matter.

The present Arbitration Request seems premature, and the present Arbitration Request does not cite any edits by Collect that followed the RfC.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon

As a party to the edit war with Collect at William Timmons I have to share some of the blame, but my impression is that Collect is one of the few very worst editors that I've had to deal with on wikipedia, in terms of persistent POV pushing contrary to all sources, reason, and other editors' advice and opinions. Fortunately, he went away from that one. Anything that can be done to moderate his behaviors would be worthwhile. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phoenix_of9

I had never interacted with most of the people in RFC but I saw that what many people experienced with Collect were same or similar to what I experienced. Edit warring, gaming the system, disruptive editing and Ididnthearthat. The way Collect responded to RfC was also typical. Instead of acknowledging anything, he engaged in wikilawyering and tried to have the RfC invalidated with lots of misinformation.

I also do think Collect may be using the attrition technique. Discussing something at great lengths and eventually trying to wear down the opponents patience. This is something that is very hard to back up with diffs so I'm sorry if that wasnt Collect's intention but that was my impression and thats what happened to User:Mike Doughney who has retired. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana

Answering Vassyana's question:

After getting blocked, Collect promised on March 3 to not edit Drudge Report for a week or more as well as 1RR or less for at least a month. But he was back to editing it just three days later: . So as far as I know, he didnt break 1rr but he did break the other voluntary condition. Phoenix of9 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

My observations concerning the edit-warring at William Timmons: Collect was sorely tried by Dicklyon, who seemed to be editing with an agenda, persistently re-adding negative material with only a very tenuous link to the BLP subject. Collect seemed to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Jayen466 10:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Yes. I edit warred. I now try to reach compromises whereever possible (vide ongoing mediation re: Rick Warren), using noticeboards, and earnestly seeking not to editwar. I was wrong. Collect (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(way too much info removed)

At this point, I am taking guidance, and will continue to take guidance, substantially from Gwen Gale, whom I trust is an acceptable administrator for me to approach with questions. I earnestly seek to avoid anything approaching an edit war, and shall continue to do so. Collect (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also sent apologies to each person posting here with concerns about my past edit warring, in the hope that they will accept it as heartfelt. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note Ratel has just come off a block for edit warring for which I think he blames me. Interesting timing. Collect (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Collect

I will make my statement tomorrow, but for now I have a couple of questions for Collect:

1) Could you please elaborate on your comments about Ratel, just above? You seem to be saying or implying that any complaints against you by Ratel are meritless and are motivated by his alleged desire to get revenge for a block which you say he blames you for. Is this what you are saying? If so, might it possibly be more productive to simply deny the substance of the complaints, without attributing a malicious motive to the person making them? And if this is not what you are saying, what is the relevance of your comment in the first place?

2) Regarding the somewhat parsimoniously worded apology which you posted, at the last possible minute, on the RFC and several user pages: given that your comments at the RFC largely consisted of attacks against those making the complaints, and given that you didn't even offer the apology, or even see fit to comment further at the RFC, until someone initiated arbitration proceedings, do you recognize that those of us whose complaints you were summarily dismissing might find it difficult to accept your apology as sincere? Please understand that I am not saying that your apology was insincere, but for many of us it may have the appearance of being insincere. Given that the RFC has been live since mid-April, why is it that an apology became appropriate on May 20th, but not before? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by the Four Deuces

I support this arbitration. In the mediation, I gave examples of where Collect had been argumentative or deceptive, and he provided no response to my comments. Furthermore, I found it disturbing that his response to the mediation was to go on a "wiki-break", and post mocking comments on his talk page. Since the mediation died down he has resumed bad faith behavior and even reported one of the parties to the mediation for edit-warring, even though he was not involved in editing the page himself. I notice that some editors support Collect but they should ask themselves why Collect left them to argue his case for him in the mediation.

Response to arbitrators

In my view, nothing has changed since the mediation. I am currently in dispute with Collect on the Fascism article (since May 16). I see a continuing pattern. I complained that a lead sentence was ambiguous and not supported by the references. He ignores what I have stated, claims we have reached a compromise and then comes up with masses of references he obviously has not read, and does not back up the sentence. He did set up an RfC but threatened an editor who joined it with edit-warring (User_talk:Lapsed_Pacifist#Editwar warning).

Here is the discussion:

Talk:Fascism#Political spectrum

Talk:Fascism#How many cites do you want?

Talk:Fascism#Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence

Talk:Fascism#First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum"

Statement by GreekParadise

I support this arbitration. The RFC gives all the detail anyone would ever need to read on Collect's general manner of editing. I've seen everything Brendan mentions. Collect is one of the main reasons I rarely edit on wikipedia anymore. In fact, Collect has convinced me that it is a waste of my time to try to edit an article in wikipedia against a persistent editwarrer who is determined to skew an article. It is simply easier to allow a wikipedia article to be completely skewed, false, and inaccurate than to attempt to post a verified fact when Collect doesn't want that fact in an article. Because in my experienced the determined falsifier and wikilawyer (Collect) seems to always prevail over consensus and truth. If Collect doesn't get his way in the daylight, he sneaks his edits weeks or months later without mention on the talk page and then fights with you for thousands of hours when you try to restore the prior consensus. He always wins. Even when he's provably certifiably wrong. And if Collect remains unpunished and unreformed, I and many other editors will just give up on wikipedia. (I kind of already have.)GreekParadise (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny

I'm not named as a party, but I have been in touch with Collect via email in the hopes of encouraging/supporting him in efforts to "stay out of trouble". My hopes for a mellow outcome clearly did not come to pass :-). I think an investigation and decision from ArbCom would provide both legitimization and closure for a good number of involved parties (including Collect), so I urge the committee to take up the case. --SB_Johnny | 02:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Buster7

I support this arbitration. The recent RfC displayed Collect's persistent, widespread and ongoing history of editing problems with other editors. Now...had Collect acted in Good Faith in response to an outpouring of examples of his miss-steps, the RfC may have accomplished something. That was its intent...to move beyond all the fussing and fighting. Progress and moving beyond contention could have been the positive result. But, sadly, Collect missed the opportunity. Even now, his timid and meek statement barely scratches the surface. The community has been unable to resolve the disruptive and time-consumming actions of this editor. Arbitration is the next step available. --Buster7 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

response to Administrator brainer

I hope you will give the RfC a look. The issue to be considered is that the actions of Collect are creating an environment where good faith editors are confronting retirement from WP rather than deal with Collect.

Collect recently apologized, on my talk page, for an edit war we never had. I would suggest that Collect consider the following clear statement of intent. If this Request for Arbitration is not granted, at least the community will have Collect's word that he will change.

"I plan on addressing the concerns raised at the recent RfC and work to improve in the next several months"--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators views and discussion

I noticed that this thread was available at previous Requests and, yet, it is not available here. My edit is in Good Faith and in the hope that admins can assist editors that would prefer to stay and to edit.

Please provide methods that the community can use to assure that Collect understands the severity of this ArbReq. Four editors (myself included) have stated that he is the worst editor they have encountered. And yet, the majority of Administrators do not see a problem worth review. --Buster7 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment in support of statement

aside from the four editors who say he is the worst editor they have encountered (fairly amazing, i think) i count 27 people between this arbcom request and the recent RfC on collect who either had a problem w/ collects behavior (endorsing parts of the RfC) or who wanted the arbitration committee to take this case. the fact that some arbitrators decline to take the case is somewhat baffling to me. 27 people is a lot. i am particularly confused by user:FayssalF and user:risker, who both cite vassyana's decision as contributing to their decisions. i answered user:vassyana's request (see & as well as the others i showed) and definitively showed that collect did not abide by his 1rr promise. i hope and assume that evidence may change things for vassyana. i am waiting for vassyana to return from a short vacation to respond. it would appear that the arbitration committee members either missed my response or ignored it. either option is disheartening. faysslf and risker, feel free to correct me if i am wrong. also, to bainer and those who cite bainer in declining (all except coren and vassyana) i would ask that you note the response of user:The Four Deuces who stated that collect has continued to cause problems since the RfC on the fascism article. also, i consider it to be an ongoing problem (ie since the RfC) that collect has not corrected his offensive accusations against others (such as, &). collect apologized for his edit-warring, but if you look at what has been said you will see that there are plenty of other issues besides just edit-warring. now, below is the impressive list of the 27 editors i mentioned above...

user:Phoenix_of9 (endorses arbitration)

user:Mattnad

user:Teledildonix314 (endorses arbitration)

user:Mike Doughney (who retired in lieu of more arguing w/ collect)

user:anarchangel

user:introman

user:dlabtot

user:factchecker atyourservice

user:bruno23

user:writegeist (endorses arbitration)

user:buster7 (endorses arbitration)

user:ikip

user:ratel (endorses arbitration)

user:Colonel_Warden

user:GreekParadise (endorses arbitration)

csloat

DGG

SluggoOne

A Nobody

user:dicklyon (endorses arbitration)

user:207.237.33.36

user talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

user:SB_Johnny (outsider who urged committee to take up the case)

user:aervanath

user:the Four Deuces (endorses arbitration)

user:jim62sch (endorsed initial cause for concern- not everything else)

and me, --Brendan19 (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Firestorm

My original involvement in this issue was as the MedCab mediator for the Rick Warren article. I eventually passed that one up to Medcom, where after a rough start significant progress is being made. I object to the inclusion of that RfM as a failed attempt at dispute resolution, as does Sunray, the current mediator. As for the RfC/U, I feel that it was a pointless dramafest. If I had my contributions examined for any possible hint of wrongdoing and had all of it shoved down my throat with a great heap of incivility, I would be pretty upset, too.

Regarding Collect's behaviour, I acknowledge that he is *very* rough around the edges, and often pushes himself too aggressively. Throughout our mediation I have consistently disagreed with his opinions. He also has (had?) several misunderstandings about the proper applications of policies and guidelines, specifically BLP, UNDUE and COAT. However, I feel that he has the wiki's best interests at heart, and is in need of guidance more than arbitration. I urge the Arbitrators to reject this case, so we can all go home and move on to more productive aspects of the wiki than this senseless drama mongering. Firestorm 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Writegeist

Support. In my experience Collect is a disruptive POV-pushing editor who habitually sucks other editors into edit-wars. He has blended tactics (bullying, deception, vindictiveness; falsification and misrepresentation of WP policies and also of other editors’ posts and positions; assumptions of bad faith; wikilawyering, gaming the system, railroading, Ididn’thearthat; false and therefore unsupported accusations of meat- and sockpuppetry; refusal to apologise or compromise; disregard for consensus; filibustering; wheedling attempts to influence admins etc.) and tone (sneering, disdainful – vide his response to his RfC/U; uncollegial; arrogant, superior, peevish, unreasonable – i.e. an all-round fuck-you attitude, apparently rooted in an unshakable faith in his own impunity, towards anyone who resists his POV-pushing etc.) to concoct the most consistently nasty editing experience I have had on WP. Posts here and at his RfC/U from other editors who have opposed his autocratic POV-pushing show that I am far from alone in this view. I believe one editor (perhaps someone will correct me if I’m wrong) has already been run off WP by Collect’s behaviour. I now avoid articles Collect is involved in. I believe others do too. This is not good for the project.

In light of Collect’s dismissive response to his RfC – pretending to be on “Wikibreak” while actually continuing to contribute to pages other than the RfC – today’s sudden rash of formulaic apologies20, posted to his exasperated critics' talk pages, for “any editwars” he “may” have had with them, and his promise to “endeavour to continue avoiding them”, looks hollow. And I think it's important to note that this “apology” refers not to his actions but to hypothetical events (“editwars I may have had with you”), as if he innocently found himself entangled in events of someone else’s making. Just like his pseudo-apology to me for his repeated, totally groundless and unsupported personal attacks (“I have earnestly sought to make no personal attacks on you, and apologize if you feel that the statements are personal attacks” – my emphasis), which continued during his RfC/U, his current mass-circulation “apology” studiously avoids apologizing for his actions. These weaselly-worded “apologies” – yet more examples of Collect’s use of deviousness and deception to the system – are expedients which demonstrate that, even in the face of all the evidence here and at the RfC, Collect still does not concede that he is at fault. Characteristically regarding us all as fools, he seems to think we’re easily duped. I trust the outcome here will prove to him that that’s a foolish assumption. Writegeist (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment in support of statement

I Support Editor:Writegeist's statement. Attempts to make light of Collects actions and to fail to proceed with this RfA would give Collect a stamp of approval. He will most assuredly use the failure to convene as not just proof of his innocence but proof of all of his ludicrous claims of ganging up and cabal creating and sockpuppetry. He will never acknowledge any wrongdoing unless confronted by impartial Administrators. Gwen Gale is not impartial.--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Collect

Good news: Despite his warning to us, Collect has not lost power to his Internet connection afer all; is editing elsewhere; and therefore is obviously able to answer the questions in Factchecker's Response to Collect (above). Writegeist (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to vassyana and bainer

Someone who didn’t know better might be forgiven for thinking there are shenanigans going on here, whereas I suppose it’s just the usual WP clusterfuck:

user:vassyana and user:Stephen_Bain predicated their Declines on the absence from this procedure of any evidence of ongoing problems with Collect. Due, apparently, in large part to this absence of evidence, vassyana declared him/herself “open to the possibility that arbitration may be necessary and appropriate, but I do not see at the moment.”

Various other admins say they were persuaded by vassyana and bainer to add Declines.

Brendan19 answered vassyana and bainer by posting examples of ongoing problems with Collect and also mentioned ‘s contention that Collect has continued to cause problems at the Fascism article in the wake of the RfC.

Yet vassyana, brainer and the assorted declining admins who cited them remain silent and those (deciding) “Declines” are left standing. Writegeist (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ratel

I heartily endorse the view of Writegeist above. He very accurately describes Collect's modus operandi. I'm one of Collect's favorite targets. The extra wrinkle I can add to Collect's repertoire is stalking, as in following me to many pages I edit and starting the familiar pattern of obstructive editing in opposition to any data I am busy debating on the Talk page. Since his shocking RfC, he's become wily, like a fox, preferring to admin-shop and noticeboard-shop rather than to edit directly. He is a past-master at expanding content disputes (which he helps foment), as quickly as possible, to noticeboards, all the while protesting loudly how he himself has "only done one edit" to the article (IOW he styles himself as an innocent bystander, a Good Samaritan just trying to keep the peace). His basic strategy is to find an opposing editor he wants to target for his "game" — because make no mistake, he doesn't give a tinker's cuss about content — then gradually escalate confrontation on as many points as possible with his selected enemy, keeping off the article page but interjecting numerous inflammatory comments at key junctures on the associated Talk page, preventing consensus emerging (usually right when people are starting to agree on something), then finding a like-minded admin he can butter-up and schmooze (Collect, in brown-nose mode, can be a really revoltingly obsequious lickspittle), and once the admin has been fellated to the point of probable compliance, the coup-de-grace is delivered: he begins begging the admin for action against his current opponent by constantly whining about reverts or other transgressions (he's a weasely wikilawyer), often giving ordinary edits as examples of reverts in his eagerness (and knowing many admins are too busy or lazy to check it all out carefully). He "wins" when the enemy gets blocked. Score 1 to Collect. Go back and start game again. And so on, ad infinitum.

If wikipedia does not find an effective way to bring stalking, game-playing, content-oblivious editors like Collect to heel, I for one shall eventually abandon all non-scientific pages I edit (I'll dismember him on any medical page, so he leaves me alone there). I note that others feel the same way, and I join them in saying that Collect is the single worst editor I have come across on wikipedia in almost 4 years. In fact, I believe he has an anxiety spectrum disorder, in the OCD range, that underlies his constant edit warring, so wikipedia is really just a place for him to act out, a form of therapy. So shame on the editors above who endorsed Collect because he's rightwing like you are, even when you know he's bad for wikipedia, and shame on the admins below who are playing the "hear no evil, see no evil" card. Shame on you. Something MUST be done about deranged editors like Collect, for the good of the project, or eventually the project will be swamped with every obsessive, obstructive, quarrelsome, querulous, no-life nutcase living in his parents' basement. ► RATEL ◄ 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Teledildonix314

This arbitration needs to remedy Collect's consistent patterns of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, POV-pushing particularly via strawman arguments, appearance of egotistical presumption of infallibility, and baseless attacks on his critics rather than any heed of their concerted criticisms. However, all my interaction with Collect has amounted in a single prolonged Mediation Case; and that's privileged. I hope Arbitration will produce an amenable solution; but i must effectively excuse myself from this situation because i'm not supposed to bring up diffs from privileged Mediation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~₄₁₁~ 07:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/7/0/1)

• Accept. The RfC's been open a month without edits for two weeks, so if there's still an issue then Arbcom does need to look into the conduct of all involved parties. Wizardman 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill  02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Per his statement above, Collect has indicated that he recognizes there is a problem and states that he has changed his method of editing. Granted that this is very much a last-minute acknowledgement on the eve of arbitration, I wonder if we should defer this request for a bit to see whether Collect's editing does in fact substantially improve, before opening an arbitration case. I'd welcome input on this suggestion from the parties and others commenting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Looking through the comments, it's my view that ArbCom involvement is needed to sort out the situation since there is not a clear consensus about the nature of the problem. ArBCom case will let all involved offer evidence of their view of the problem. From there we can decide on the needed remedies. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept.  Roger Davies 04:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept - scenario suggests independent investigation rather than (or hopefully as well as) mediation will be next step. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. I am not convinced that this is beyond the ability of the community to resolve, that all avenues of resolving conduct concerns have been exhausted, nor that any disruption taking place is such a pressing concern that the former two points need to be waived. Additionally, arbitration is a very blunt instrument and I believe this situation would be better served by a more personalized and nuanced approach. Also, Newyorkbrad's point is also persuasive to me. On a related note, can anyone provide information about whether or not Collect abided by his voluntary one-month submission to a 1RR restriction through the month of March? I am open to the possibility that arbitration may be necessary and appropriate, but I do not see at the moment. --Vassyana (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to the comments mentioning my decline: I still do not see a reason to believe "that this is beyond the ability of the community to resolve, that all avenues of resolving conduct concerns have been exhausted, nor that any disruption taking place is such a pressing concern that the former two points need to be waived." --Vassyana (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Request: Collect, could you expand your statement a bit. It would be nice to know what steps you will take to avoid this happening again if this requested case is declined. John Vandenberg 07:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline at this time, per bainer. John Vandenberg 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Reject, unless some preliminary evidence can be demonstrated of continuing problematic editing following the request for comment (preliminary in the sense that all that is necessary is to demonstrate that there is a real issue to be considered). In the event that the request is accepted, the scope ought to extend to include all the parties listed here or at the request for comment who have been involved in these editing disputes. --bainer (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; I think this is at the edge of needing arbitration, but that there is still reasonable hope that this will resolve satisfactorily without our intervention. — Coren  01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Coren and bainer. If things don't improve, then a case will be needed. Please don't all hover waiting for any backsliding. Politely point out any lack of improvement, and encourage the improvements if they take place. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassyana and Bainer. -- FayssalF - 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline for now, per Vassyana and Bainer. Risker (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)