Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | C68-FM-SV

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

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

1 Motions and requests by the parties
2 Proposed temporary injunctions
3 Questions to the parties
- 3.1 Question from FT2
- 3.2 Question from Merzul about Off-Wiki Sites
4 Proposed final decision

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Previous ArbCom discussion?

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Oversighted SlimVirgin userspace page?

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

“

Please stop harassing me:

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

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

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

”

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] JzG is added as a party

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] More Oversighted SlimVirgin edits?

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Request for FloNight

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Deletion of SV's user talk page history

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

I am wondering if and when the history of SV's talk page is going to be returned. The log suggests it has been deleted in large part since June 19 of last year. Discussion in July shows that there were some difficulties with replacing it, but that this was intended to happen.[22] However, nearly a year later much of it is still missing. I'm wondering first if this is something the arbiters will address, and second if it should not be replaced while the case is ongoing. Mackan79 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The DRV will be closed as a "keep deleted", I believe. ElinorD is apparently going through the history of SV's talk page, some of which is at User_talk:SlimVirgin/temp, and selectively restoring edits, which everyone who has bothered to participate in the DRV is agreeing is acceptable. This work has been in progress since 11 August 2007 ([23]), and appears to have restored stuff up to Feb 2007 ([24]) to date - at that rate of progress, it should be done in a few months, although Elinor has sped up again recently. As the history of SlimVirgin's talk pages is a complete mess, with things having been moved back and forth all over the place, selective deletions here there and everywhere, and some heavy use of oversight, nobody can really tell what is missing or selectively not-restored. Neıl 龱 09:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undo the combination of two cases

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Motion to close without prejudice

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe because, on-wiki and in the off-wiki forums "blessed" by the WP in crowd, comments not to the liking of certain people get censored [25] [26] and might get the writer accused of stalking, harassment, etc., and threatened with a block or ban [27][28][29][30]. Is it surprising that people feel more like they can speak freely in outside "unauthorized" forums? *Dan T.* (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposals by User:Ncmvocalist

Comment by others:

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

Agreed, evidence, [31]. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

[edit] Administrators expected to lead by example

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Know yourself

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

[edit] MeatBall:DefendEachOther

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Conduct outside Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

[edit] Guilt by association

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Compliance

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Template

tbn) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Previous ArbCom rulings involving FeloniousMonk

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

[edit] FeloniousMonk

2) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([32]) ([33]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([34]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([35]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given (example).

2.1) FeloniousMonk has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([36]) ([37]); and engaged in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats ([38]); personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([39]), and has made meritless accusations against other editors on several occasions ([40]). He is also unwilling to acknowledge criticism from his peers of his administrative actions when it is given (example).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Previous ArbCom rulings involving SlimVirgin

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There is no ArbCom finding that SlimVirgin misused the admin tools during the Israeli Apartheid situation. The only remedy that mentions her name in that case and orders a specific action is, "Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur." [41] Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] SlimVirgin

4) SlimVirgin has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([42]); threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([43]).

4.1) SlimVirgin has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using her administrative tools [44], and by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring ([45]); threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([46]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

[edit] JzG

5) JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has repeatedly shown poor judgement since becoming an administrator, both in using his administrative tools ([47]) and by engaging in a variety of disruptive and unseemly conduct, including threats, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith ([48]) ([49]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed; I'm assuming he's a party of this case until/unless ArbCom specify otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] FeloniousMonk desysopped

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

1.1) FeloniousMonk's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) administrative privileges are revoked indefinitely.

1.2) FeloniousMonk's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) administrative privileges are revoked. He may reapply at any time via the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Supported by: principles ([50] and [51]/[52]), evidence ([53] and [54]) and findings of fact ([55] and [56]). Your repetition of this statement for the subsequent proposed remedies in this section appears to be deliberately disingenuous; perhaps explaining why you feel the remedy does not match the findings would be more appropriate than simply making a blunt statement. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] FeloniousMonk placed on civility parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] SlimVirgin desysopped

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Why? Neıl 龱 07:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] SlimVirgin placed on civility parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm intrigued to what extent you've considered the evidence, Ryan. The incidents I list under personal attacks aren't ones where she could have perceived herself as being attacked, but rather where she was specifically targeting others, often with the help of Crum375.[57] Of course the problem isn't foul language, but again that she goes on personal campaigns against other editors to get her way, along with the several other issues raised. The fact remains Cla68 didn't bring this to ArbCom, and with an RfC it may not have needed a case, but if ArbCom wants to resolve the issue I hope it will consider the more active role it's taking compared to other situations. Mackan79 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] JzG desysopped

5) JzG's (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) administrative privileges are revoked. He may not reapply via the usual means. He may only reapply by appeal to the Committee, upon demonstrating that he can follow policy and community practice to a sufficient level that continued remedies will not be necessary.

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

~~Proposed; no preference until diffs added to my findings. I'm assuming he's a party of this case until/unless ArbCom specify otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)~~ Proposed; Of the overwhelming consensus formed at the RFC (81 people excluding myself), only one other person has responded here and appears not to have understood what he endorsed. But, even with a very small minority of 18 who endorsed JzG's response, perhaps the Committee should be the only avenue of appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Both 5 and 5.1 are ridiculous.--MONGO 02:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is that? Sean William @ 16:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This remedy should be expanded to include all admins who are willing to take on tough cases. Eventually they're bound to irritate someone, and we just can't have that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then lets desysop people who aren't parties then. The RFC brought up very hard evidence of JzG being abusive in some way or another. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? a/improper use, and b/persistent rudeness inappropriate for the role DGG (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Rudeness, yes. Improper use? Show me diffs- everything I've seen him do was justified. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of why principle 7 should probably be principle 1 in this case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, excuse me? Would you mind elaborating on why you think so? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Absolutely a bad idea. JzG is a net benefit to the project by a long shot. Rouge admins are always in the spotlight, that doesn't mean they (we?) are out of order. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid if an admin repeatedly fails to comply with basic policy, then it does mean there is no net benefit to the project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not automatically, no. I agree with you in principle, but not as far as JzG is concerned. The RfC started by Cla68 (for whatever personal reasons) was, all in all, the right thing: The bottomline as I see it was Guy was 'officially' asked by many to keep up the great work but try to avoid letting understandable frustration get in the way of it. Beyond that, it gets more and more difficult imho to weigh JzG's occasional suboptimal behaviour and choice of words against his tremendous contributions. Granted, the same goes for Cla68 and other parties, too. dorftrottel (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Guy may have a few problems when it comes to expressing his thoughts, but as far as tool use is concerned, it's normally spot on. He's actually normally right with what he says, the problem comes with how he says it. There are other remedies that could deal with the civility aspect. All in all, it would be a huge loss to the project removing JzGs bit because he does a lot of 'in the trench' work that would be hard to replace. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, principle 7, the RFC, are among the things that made me come to this remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, it's a dangerous precedent to set that we should tolerate bad behavior due to the value of good behavior; What other methods could we employ to rectify the situation without Guy's losing his adminship? --SSBohio 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not good for Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 23:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG is one of the least civil of all the administrators I've interacted with since I arrived here in 2005. I think the project is improved by his hard work, even in the face of intransigent opposition; I think the project is damaged by his profane and offensive approach to his fellow volunteers, myself included. We can't easily separate the baby from the bathwater in the case of JzG, and tolerating his bad behavior because of the value of his good behavior is a dangerous standard to employ. His high-handed approach is fundamentally antithetical to his continuing to hold a position of trust and authority here. Looking at my own experience and at this case, without a pervasive change to his behavior, I can't support JzG's retaining his adminship unscathed. --SSBohio 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts about desysopping anyone for incivility alone. If ArbCom chooses to desysop JzG, it should be squarely based on his misuse of the administrator tools. Viridae makes some good points in the relevant evidence section, but the alleged wheel war on User:Fairchoice was not a policy violation (see my comment on Talk:/Evidence). I haven't considered all the other evidence to see whether it justifies a desysopping, but what I'm saying is, especially in JzG's case where there may be some extenuating circumstances in his personal life, we should desysop a bad administrator for being a bad administrator, not for using foul language on occasion. That's a tough call to make, and I haven't made up my mind on it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I now support a permanent removal of adminship (with the usual rule that JzG may appeal to the Committee or reapply at RFA). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is evidence yet to come, containg clear abuse. Viridae ^Talk 00:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to that evidence. Incidentally, I just got an EC while I was about to post the following: No. Granted, Guy can be a grumpy ol' bastard, and he shouldn't let the stress of dealing with vandals and other idiots get to him. But his heart is in the right place and all in all I feel more comfortable having him around as an admin. Also: Per SandyGeorgia, the cases shouldn't have been merged in the first place. dorftrottel (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (now instated below, I don't feel the evidence warrants this remedy)

No. Granted, Guy can be a grumpy ol' bastard, and he shouldn't let the stress of dealing with vandals and other idiots get to him. But his heart is in the right place and all in all I feel more comfortable having him around as an admin. Also: Per SandyGeorgia, the cases shouldn't have been merged in the first place. dorftrottel (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose JzG works in difficult areas. I still feel his sysop status is a net positive. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, period (and suggest that if some of the stoking of the fires by other inappropriate behaviors of other editors mentioned in this case wrt how they deal with newbies could be nipped in the bud, the troll and vandal fighters would have less to deal with in the longrun). The difference between JzG and SV/FM is that he has acknowledged the need to change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mere acknowledgement is neither enough, or effective. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It goes a long way, and it's more than most of the others have done. dorftrottel (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not go a long way, even if it's more than most of the others. This is because not too long after he acknowledges the problems, he says "Fuck me, yet another obsessive pro-PRT WP:SPA pushing Malewicki's fantasy. Where the hell do they all come from? I swear that 100% of the entire world's population of PRT enthusiasts edits Wikipedia - and the whole lot of them would fit in a single Ultra pod." In case the point hasn't been made clear from the quote; this is atrociously unacceptable conduct. I don't know whether he engages in it because he's incapable of being civil, or because he refuses to control himself and comply with the wide community's standards of what is expected of an admin. Wikipedia enforces whatever remedies are necessary to prevent misconduct - keeping his sysop status after this is not going to do that. Ones contributions (whatever they may be) do not legitimize their egregious and/or very repetitive misconduct. Note; I have not suggested he be desysopped indefinitely. However, until such a time he can demonstrate that he's both willing and able (currently lacking on one or both) to comply with such standards of the wide community for an admin, it's time to step down, even if it's by ArbCom force rather than voluntarily. Upon gaining the community's trust back, or the Committee's, then he can reapply. He needs to demonstrate that he can comply with basic policy above all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree; motivation, cluefulness and intent do matter. I admit I haven't trawled through all of the evidence in the JzG case because I'm uninterested; I've watched all of these editors' talk pages, AN and AN/I and most policy pages for two years, and I base my position on never having observed the same kinds of issues with JzG that occur with SV/FM/et al. JzG deals with trolls and vandals and becomes brusque and frustrated and vulgar; FM and SV use their positions to attack productive, respected editors and to advance policy positions. "Fuck you" certainly isn't good, but it doesn't do the kind of long-term damage to Wiki that manipulation of policy pages to further POV does, and I believe if JzG recognizes that he needs to stop cursing at people, there's a least a chance that he will. Further, JzG at least has responded and acknowledged a need for change. FM has never (to my knowledge) made amends for the statements he made about Marskell and TimVickers, which were far more damaging in terms of googlefiability than any "fuck you" (note that these abusive admins rarely use their real names, as do Marskell and Vickers, so their reputations in real life are impacted). And SV, even while under ArbCom examination (or maybe not) continues today the exact behaviors that so many have tried to point out to her (failure to assume good faith and personalization of issues when other editors are just trying to "do their job" with her somebody's "trying to draw me into conflict or make extra work for me"). This evidences no cluefulness regarding the behaviors that led to these problems. Does she simply not realize she does this, has she been given a green light to continue this sort of behavior, is she above the "rules" that apply to the rest of us? Will we ever know? Yes, I suppose we will when ArbCom, now having all of this evidence plainly in front of them, makes a ruling. In my case, I know that CeilingCrash and Zeraeph both indicated in numerous e-mails and off-Wiki postings that they have Jimbo's support (perceived or real, I can only guess), so if SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph because she was asked to, 1) there are three tiers of users on Wiki, and 2) she still should have investigated more thoroughly and indicated that she was an involved admin by virtue of her long-standing issues with me and asked that an uninvolved admin examine the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would put this one in the same category as the desysopping of Betacommand — JzG unquestionably does a lot of good work, but is that enough — and I don't know the answer to that question. In both cases, the overwhelming hope of the community is (or was in BC's case) that he would correct the behavior in question and continue to serve as an admin where he does a great service. There comes a point where you realize that isn't going to happen but I don't think that we are there yet. --B (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A user's contributions do not legitimize a user's repeated (and/or egregious) misconduct on Wikipedia, ever, particularly in a case like this so far down the dispute resolution process. A request for arbitration was made because after the acknowledgement, the same pattern continued over and over. It was not an occasional lapse in judgement. Sysop tools are not granted so that you may repeatedly fail to follow policy or procedure in your use of tools. If you are unable to contribute constructively while complying with policy and procedure, then you are unfit to be an admin and need to step down. (That was also essentially what the overwhelming consensus at the RFC revealed). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. JzG does have civility issues, but the misuse of admin tools is minimal at best, I don't see a true cause for this. Wizardman 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman is correct. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG placed on civility parole

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposals by User:Jossi

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Wikipedia is a community-generated encyclopedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposals by IP:80.65.250.135

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Communications outside of Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposal by User:Dragon695

[edit] Proposed principle

[edit] Guilt by association

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposals by User:William M. Connolley

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Not a bureaucracy

1) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] JzG commended

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] SlimVirgin commended

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] FeloniousMonk commended

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposals by User:SchmuckyTheCat

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Topical POV

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Simple acknowledgement. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] Please don't wikilawyer

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

[edit] SlimVirgin 1RR

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Serial tandem edit warring probation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See enforcement below on practical effect. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

Support. dorftrottel (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Topical bans may be useful, probationary period

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Topical bans, enforcement

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Proposals by John254

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] JzG

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] JzG desysopped

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

[edit] JzG banned for one month

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposals by User:Jehochman

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Admin tools are not for struggling with other admins

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] For the good of Wikipedia, not personal agendas

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Administrators expected to set a good example

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Parties:

Comment by Others:

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Bad blood

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cla68's RFA

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the way I read Slim's questioning at the Rfa, she is asking him about why he suddenly appeared at the Gary Weiss article and nominated it for deletion...in the process of nominating it, Cla68 linked to a !BADSITE! which had harassment posted about Slim...Slim states she thought Cla might be another Wordbomb sock...and there was every reason for her to state that based on her questioning which continues afterward...Cla made his first edit to the article (as far as I can tell) here, on 10/25/2006..the same day he added controversially attributed information to the Angela Beesley article [58]]...I see no evidence that Cla showed any interest in Gary Weiss, Naked Short Selling or related issues prior to that edit...Cla then edited the article, adding fact tags and commenting in his edit summary "the article has a lot of uncited assertions, if they're not cited soon, some editor will probably start deleting them. Uncited text is always ok for immediate deletion without discussion.", then demanded inline cites [59] and added "self-promotional" (regarding Weiss' website) in the process which Mantanmoreland reverted [60] and then Cla nominates it for deletion 12 minutes after Mantanmoreland makes that edit.[61]. Cla sudden interest in the article, that it is completely unrelated to anything else he has had a previous interest in, and his odd determination to insult (by adding the self-promotional jab) and then try to get the bio deleted, raised Slim's eyebrows and surely was an explanation for her questioning at the Cla Rfa and her early suspicions that Cla could be a Wordbomb sock account or possibly a meatpuppet.--MONGO 06:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see. He said he lived in Japan[62] and there isn't any sign that people doubted that, or that his presumed location influenced any votes. And if you're looking for any half-decent clue, how about this caption? Not that it matters, since it would be an extraordinary voter who would vote based on Cla68's location rather than on his conduct. But doesn't it show that she didn't make it up? She said that he was supporting Wordbomb. Well, was he or wasn't he? Ashton1983 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] Viridae deadminned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Viridae Warned

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cla68 adminship

3) Cla68 is granted adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moral support for a common sense solution, although I'm not sure it follows directly. Of course it isn't just a matter of false statements either, but an editor who has thrown a lot of weight around in several RfAs, often with dubious claims or tactics, with very stunted community evaluation of her own editing. One other example was CharlotteWebb's, which failed after Jayjg asked based on previously undisclosed information why the candidate had used Tor,[63] and then in the immediately following edit (before the candidate had even answered), Crum375 voted to oppose.[64] SV soon arrived, presenting a number of justifications for Jayjg's actions while he remained silent. This seems again to be close collaboration on RfAs by the same small group of editors. In terms of defending WordBomb: in fact SV was editing with Mantanmoreland on another page the same day she answered his request to indefinitely block WordBomb.[65][66] They'd previously talked on user talk pages,[67] and Jayjg had recently asked Mantanmoreland to email him.[68] In terms of the original evidence that WordBomb sent to SV and says was forwarded to Mantanmoreland, my understanding is she claims she only forwarded the email to several admins without reading it, although this doesn't exactly add up.[69] In explaining the initial indef block of WordBomb, she's since claimed with specific oversighted edits that WordBomb posted policy-violating material after he agreed not to, although then retreating from this saying she never actually asked, knew, or saw the significance of what was in the edits she sited as evidence in the recent arbitration case (point 7 here). Certainly you can't know what really happened with much of this, and I'm not sure any of it puts ArbCom in a place to rewrite Cla's RfA, but if we're trying to correct the record about whether Cla68 was reasonable to ask questions, and whether he has a right to contest the lack of scrutiny SV's own editing has received in light of her free-wheeling accusations, his position is well supported. Mackan79 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] SlimVirgin administrator privileges are revoked

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposals by User:Neil

[edit] Cla68 commended

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Viridae commended

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

[edit] Proposals by 65.54.98.104 (talk)

[edit] Where there's smoke there's fire

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed remedy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposal by Shalom

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think this is a good compromise based on the precedent at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson. [70] I think the parallels between JzG now and Mr. Gustafson then dictate a similar response. Both used uncivil language and made questionable administrative decisions, but both acknowledged there was a problem after 2 RFCs and said they would try to work on it. Looking at the disagreement on the proposal to desysop JzG permanently, I don't think the Community really supports taking this action, but a mere civility warning seems too lenient. That's why we rely on precedent. I think the remedy imposed on Mr. Gustafson was fair, and I think a 30-day suspension of JzG would be equally fair. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Proposal by Mackan79

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Unusual circumstances

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed by Random832

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] Proposed Remedy

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposals by Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

You know, the question that matters is "is it a good block, or a bad block?" This is a volunteer project. All admins that choose to make blocks do so with the knowledge that they will receive angry reactions from the blockees. You also have to deal with people who see places like AN3, ANI and RFAR as a place to settle scores (you just need to look at the farce this page has become). Either we make a rule which says "blocks must be handled in the order they are made", we find someone else to fill the role that Geni and William filled...or we deal with the fact that this is a volunteer project. When someone goes to the trouble of sorting through a 3RR report, and makes a good call, we say "thank you". We don't look at them suspiciously and say "what's your motivation?" Guettarda (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Farce" is an interesting characterization of the page, and not one that I think will be universally agreed to. I see that there are some people rather dug in and insistent that there is absolutely no problem other than with the people who presented evidence, but I also see a lot of reasoned presentation of sober, well thought out principles, findings of fact, and remedies. But I agree, a question that matters is indeed "Is it a good block?". However, it's not the only important question. Some of the issues raised here are about actions that ultimately did not result in blocks... actions such as ownership and intimidation. Sometimes no blocks resulted... instead the result was editors feeling they cannot participate in the articles or policy discussion, cannot speak out about their concerns, or worse. ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A "blocks must be handled in the order they are made" (sic) rule would be a bad thing as some requests take a lot of time/thought/admin discussion to consider. But this is missing the point. According to Huldra's evidence, of a total of 17 blocks FM made resulting from AN3, CSN, AN, and ANI, 11 were done on the request of User:Jayjg, 3 on request by User:SlimVirgin, 2 by User:Zeq and 1 by User:KillerChihuahua. Potentially controversial decisions should be made by neutral admins. This decision was made 11 minutes after the report was filed. This one was made 20 minutes after the report was filed. This one was 8 minutes after the report was filed. You get the idea — rarely is an AN3 report handled that quickly, but FM handled these three in record time. You said that the only thing that matters is whether they are good blocks, so let's take a look. In the first of the three decisions I linked (see history from around that time), JayJG, SlimVirgin, and Calltech all had exactly three reverts. A neutral administrator might have decided to block everyone or to protect the article in lieu of blocking. From the above history, you can see that JJay and JayJG reverted each other exactly 3 times each. Then, nearly 24 hours later, JJay made an unrelated revert. As an admin who regularly patrols AN3, I can tell you that my verdict would have most likely been to protect the page. It most certainly would NOT have been to block JJay and only JJay. But a neutral administrator never had a chance to review it because it was cherry picked. In the second case above, SlimVirgin also violated 3RR (see history) and a neutral admin would likely have blocked both. (The third one looks like an otherwise good block.) The point is that in these cases, FM handled a request minutes after it was filed and in one of them (the first) the response was questionable and in one it was clearly wrong. The BETTER solution that leads to no suspicion, no questionable decisions, etc, is to recuse yourself from making the block if it's an issue raised by your friends. If it's complicated and requires a computer science degree or a psychic to understand the diffs, there's no harm in an involved user offering a comment, but let an uninvolved admin make the decision. This is rather fundamental in the use of admin tools - they are not to be used to gain an advantage. Adam "Vanished User" was desysopped for far less. --B (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals by User:Dorftrottel

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] Revocation of admin privileges

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] SlimVirgin and JzG restricted from alleging harassment

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow - so someone who has been subject to incredibly extensive harassment[71] is forbidden to speak of it. And Lar took issue with me calling this a farce? Blame the victim, shall we? Guettarda (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Proposals by User:Barberio

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

[edit] Proposed Principle

[edit] Poisoning of the well

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed Finding of Fact

[edit] Poisoning of the well in Cla68's RfA

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I stated in my evidence section why Slim questioned Cla at his Rfa and as far as I was concerned, his answers were inadequate. I can't explain why Cla suddenly showed up at the Gary Weiss article...what the impetus was. But the subsequent events after the failed Rfa is what troubles me now...his following Slim around to various articles he has never shown any prior interests in and are wholly unrelated to his usual interests...that is Wikistalking...period...and had he not done such things, many that opposed him the first time around may very well have been interested in supporting him in an admin bid later on. I am deeply troubled by Cla68's ongoing campaign to get Slim one way or another. Why are some pretending that Cla68's Rfa is the only one that looked favorable to pass until some revelation was presented and editors became more aware that a candidate may not be a good one. It's not Slim's fault that Cla's Rfa failed...it's his fault for failing to explain himself adequately.--MONGO 05:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mongo, could you state which articles you're talking about? The only one I'm aware of where he said anything relating to SV was Animal testing. At the same time, I have to wonder if you've actually looked at SV's interaction on these articles if you're wondering why Cla has taken issue. For one example, you can see her telling Viriditas to stop complaining that an editor wikistalked him to ALF here. This was similar to my initial experience where SV followed me to an obscure article, reverted three times in less than a half hour, and then told me to stop the nonsense about harassment and answer her questions once she decided to speak.[72] You don't seem to realize that there is an issue here, a real one, and that this kind of one-sided endorsement is just as offensive to some as the suggestions that other editors shouldn't be allowed to charge harassment. Mackan79 (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Remedy

[edit] Reversal of poisoning of the well in Cla68's RfA

3.1) A new RfA is to be opened nominating Cla68 for administrator. An archive of the previous voting, as it would have been when the normal time had expired will be presented, and unless contested will be taken as a weight of support. During discussion of the RfA, any editor may strike-out negative comments against Cla68 not supported with evidence.

3.2) A new RfA is to be opened nominating Cla68 for administrator. An archive of the previous voting, as it would have been when the normal time had expired will be presented, and unless contested will be taken as a weight of support. On closure of the RfA, it is strongly advised that opposition to the RfA only be taken into account if it is supported by evidence.

3.3) A new RfA is to be opened nominating Cla68 for administrator. An archive of the previous voting, as it would have been when the normal time had expired will be presented, and unless contested will be taken as a weight of support. Editors who made comments based solely on the misleading 'poisoning of the well' of the prior RfA shall be excluded from the process. --Barberio (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is a compromise, allowing Cla68 a fair shot at a second RfA, while removing the prejudice generated by the first one. This does not create a precedent of ArbCom being able to appoint administrators, since anyone may still cause the RfA to fail if they present sufficient evidence to sway opinion against it.

Note. I suspect this remedy could be implemented even without the direct approval of the Arbitration Committee, as it is simply an extension of the principle of removing unsubstantiated attacks, but it would make it much clearer that this is an acceptable compromise if they agreed with it. --Barberio (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. To unclear, to arbitrary, and an invitation to edit warring during a second RfA. Simply have a normal RfA, in the nomination link to the old RfA and this discussion, maybe with a few words from the nominator (not "any editor"), and let things take their due course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Used as a basis for alternative 3.2 --Barberio (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

An arbcom order is not necessary. Cla68 can apply for adminship at any time. Any Wikipedian may nominate Cla68 for adminship at any time, and if he accepts the nomination the nomination will go to discussion. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your justified concern that those who didn't display any basic decency in his first RfA might not show it in another RfA either. However, it's a recipe for disaster and utterly unworkable. dorftrottel (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See the new alternatives. --Barberio (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Still far too problematic. I can see the shit hitting the fan right now if any of this were to be approved. But again, I agree with the spirit. I would however agree to a proposal excluding SlimVirgin from any future RfA of Cla68, both in person and 'in meatpuppet' (maybe formulated as the principle that 'neither Wikipedia nor any of its processes are to be used as a battleground'). dorftrottel (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While I support the intent here, I also don't think this is exactly right. An RfA is an RfA, and if an editor is in good standing then they should be allowed to comment. Trying to block points of view, whether we think they're valid or not, should be troubling. The complicating factor here at least in my view is the real problem: SV brought in so much opposition to Cla obviously because she's a very influential editor, regardless of how people got to the RfA. However, there is also strong belief that her editing has not been adequately evaluated, and if it were, that people would not so readily support her accusations against other editors. And of course the related problem is that continuing with the acceptance of this case, community evaluation of her editing is being prevented. In that light, the only way I can see resolving this is through some form of agreement: 1. RfCs or other community evaluations of SV's editing continue to be limited, 2. SV then makes certain concessions not to promote controversy, 3. Cla68 is granted adminship, with her agreement, which others would then likely accept. Of course the chances of SV agreeing to this is minimal, but some sort of compromise like this seems the only way you could really circumvent the RfA process. OTOH, without this type of concession, I do think some limitations on controversial editing need to happen partly in fairness to Cla68 and others; specifically with regard to an RfA just doesn't seem correct. Mackan79 (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Supposed attack subpage (was mentioned by SV)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Uh... I read here that keeping tabs on other users was completely acceptable, and one user even specifically mentions that they're used in preparation for arbcom or RfC's. I fail how to see how it's an attack page. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My impolitic-original-research thought is that when you see the univers as us v. them, everything discussing your actions is an attack. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to now state my agreement with Kwsn here. Cla has used a perfectly acceptable means of preparing "evidence", as it were, for a future RfC. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. are you saying it is or is not an attack page? and is or is not an acceptable way to prepare Rfc's or arbcomm evidence sections? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also confused - you're saying you agree with Kwsn, but you use the loaded word "manipulating" that seems to imply wrongdoing on Cla68's part - can you clarify this? --Random832 (contribs) 14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as well. In my evidence I think I pretty clearly demonstrate that Cla68's use of a draft RfC for JzG prior to going live with the JzG RfC seemed to have good results. If an RfC gets widely endorsed, has a number of alternate views which align or elaborate which also get widely endorsed, and generates statements of intent for positive change by the subject, it's hard to see how one could justify the charge that the draft was an "attack", or was "manipulating" anything. Judge things by their results, not by pejorative labels attached by detractors. But perhaps AD is just misusing the term "manipulating"? ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion stems from the word "manipulation". Perhaps "use" was better; although it can be used in the context of "manipulating a tool" (or maybe my dictionary is wrong >_<), it does seem to infer negative intent. I have reworded it to "use" to prevent confusion. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG's evidence

(moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence)The diffs JzG provides in his evidence are annotated with my blue italicised comments, as follows:

[73] apparent Wikistalking - snide comment, but not stalking, not sure spiteful is right
[74] Snide and unhelpful attack, combined with dismissal of the issue of harassment of editors - sarcasm
[75] on the matter of antisocialmedia - not sure why this is even here, seems to be Cla68 helping to build a better article - how is this spiteful?
[76] links to a piece by Cade Metz (who Cla68 knows, Metz having been his outlet in the "secret"! mailing list story) to further his campaign against Jossi (incidentally, the article is characteristically inaccurate, failing to spot that Jossi !voted keep on the criticism fork afd). The irony! Cla689 creating a section on "conflict of interest" while pursuing an apparent conflict of interest... - raising Jossi's COI on Prem Rawat (something Arbcom itself subsequently became aware of, and Jossi himself agreed to refrain from editing Prem Rawat and related articles - how is this evidence of Cla68 being spiteful?
[77] champions Piperdown - Piperdown was unblocked - how is arguing for a user to be unblocked being spiteful, particularly considering the user WAS unblocked?
[78], [79] More Wikistalking - first diff is Cla68 (correctly) removing weasel words, second is thanbking someone for showing patience (how are these evidence of Cla68 being spiteful?)
[80] part of a brief edit war to try to drag Jayjg into a contentious arbitration case, reverted by people including clerks and arbitrators numerous times. - a trawl of the history of that time - [81], shows no such reversions by Cla68.
[82] a dig at Jimbo and an indication that he is on first-name terms with Metz, a long-standing sniper at Wikipedia - asking Jimbo a question? Calling someone by their first name? How is this spiteful?
[83] a sockpuppet promotes Cla68's false allegations published in the Register - nothing to to with Cla68 - irrelevant
[84] trolling re Swalwell, Alberta, a part of the SV = LM meme - agree here, Cla68's comment was not needed
[85], once again citing Metz. - what? Providing a reference is spiteful?

To summarise, JzG's "evidence" appears to be a collation of smears. Not one of the diffs JzG gives to back up his description of Cla68 as "spiteful" give much weight to that claim, when viewed either in isolation or as a group. At worst, there are perhaps two examples of sarcasm within the 11 bulletpoints JzG uses. Neıl 龱 08:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm very disappointed in the seeming misuse of diffs in the evidence section (this group specifically, and others more generally). A little more good faith reading of folks comments goes a long way towards not thinking they are attacking you. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cla68

Momentarily, I can't see any sufficient evidence presented to suggest that a finding or remedy be made against this party, mainly due to the lack of policy violations. If there is any new evidence added concerning this party's conduct, I'd appreciate it if a note/link is left here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I've seen that might be worth a finding is that cla sometimes has a hard time letting go of an issue. But it's pretty weak. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

When I initially commented on the case at Cla68's RFC (rather cheekily as Academy Leader here) it seemed to me then, and still does now, that Cla initiated the RFC process to try to understand, from a community perspective, how his engagement in the Weiss article affected the outcome of his RFA. It seemed to me then that Cla was in the right regarding the various problems pertaining to that subject, and that he was essentially browbeaten for taking a policy-compliant approach to resolving the issues with the article. However, and this fact continually strikes me, he could have easily initiated this drive in a more sensitive manner relying on his credibility as an editor entirely without referencing or linking to WR or ASM. The day after he "violated 3rr on his own RFA," as Denny Colt put it, [86] to link to ASM, BADSITES was inspired, [87] which various editors adamantly tried to cram down WP's collective throat as policy over the next year.

Despite everything that happened since then that would seem to evidence the contrary, especially the Mantanmoreland ArbCom case, Cla's persistence in the use of RFC and community sanctioned processes to resolve conflicts indicates to me that he still has tremendous faith in the system. I don't believe he is or ever was acting out of spite or desire for revenge in pursuing above board DR processes. The fact that he pursues DR in areas where he himself has no prior involvement, frequently in opposition to other prominent members of the community, indicates to me that his faith in Wikipedia is in the system and its consensus-based processes rather than with its biggest would-be proponents. His interests, as far as I can tell, apart from article writing, are in seeing policy evenly applied everywhere, even and especially among those with tens of thousands of edits who make and enforce policy on a regular basis. DR is the only internal system by which any editor can be made accountable, and no editor can be exempt. As Cla earnestly pursues DR processes to develop consensus on and resolve community conflicts, he has my full support. Amerique^dialectics 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh...evidence now submitted indicates that this is no longer the case.--MONGO 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Which evidence would that be? --NE2 16:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

All of this evidence demonstrating a long pattern of wikistalking, harassment and other offenses.--MONGO 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This just shows how people like yourself continually play the "harassment card" to try to get the upper hand in disputes. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The evidence of Cla68 wikistalking Slim to articles he had never before had any interest in and are far removed from his usual editing venues is obvious. If you choose to think the diffs are inaccurate that is certainly up to you.--MONGO 17:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

~~I'll have a look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)~~

I'm going to have to postpone this - I don't expect to be on (much anyway) for 8 days or so. But it'll give an opportunity for any other evidence to be submitted concerning the newly added parties. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing is very clear to me: Wherever Cla68 may have gone overboard, he is not alone, nor is he the one who went overboard the first, the farthest, or the most frequent. I think what happened in his RfA is rightfully still upsetting him. Like many others before and after him, he never received anything resembling an apology, for the shameful political tactics with which his RfA was shot down vengeance-style, with massive assumption of bad faith with him and clear-as-daylight-canvassing that still stinks to the high heavens. And before someone inevitably replays the 'so long ago, he should have let it go', let me say that time all by itself never rights any wrongs. To say that Cla's intention is to harm the project through harassment or disruption is simply impudent. dorftrottel (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to be lenient with people who may react sub-optimally when they are provoked. This applies equally to JzG, Cla68 and MONGO. In such situations, supporting the editor can be more productive than restricting them. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative Activities Question

In various users evidence sections, there are descriptions of what appear to be inappropriate uses of admin tools by FM and SV. Does anyone have an idea what percentage of thier administrative tool use are these kinds of problematic actions? It looks like FM has made 47 administrator actions since March 17, 2007 (just over a year), and that sv has made 50 administrator actions since February 20, 2008 (three months).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

by Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not the percentage that has any bearing. Administrators are expected to abide by policy. Occasional mistakes are ok, but when it becomes a pattern, then that's where the line is drawn (and remedies are considered). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In my section on FM, I identified 12 of his 40 total logged actions since May 1, 2007 (30%) that I believed to be errant. It's important to keep several things in mind, though. 10 or so of his logged actions were protecting user pages of IP addresses of Jinxmchue (talk · contribs), a chronically annoying, though not banned, user. The two were basically in a tif where Jinxmchue decided to quit using his account and just edit via whatever dynamic IP address his ISP assigned him. FM decided that this needed to be documented on the user pages of these IP address (for example, see User:67.135.49.147) and when Jinxmchue objected, FM protected the pages. While this isn't thrilling conduct, it isn't really abusive either, but the point is, 10 of FM's 40 logged actions were protecting these IP user pages. So the 12 actions I identified were really closer to half of his total incidents of using the admin tools. Sheer numbers really don't mean anything. The second thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between misuse and abuse. Someone may misuse the tools without intending to be abusive. For example, indef blocking an IP (other than an open proxy) is a misuse because IPs change over time. That isn't done to be abusive. There was no malice or anything like that - it's just a bad idea and in one case, while preparing evidence, I found a dynamic or shared IP that he had indeffed and I removed the block because it was clearly someone else trying to use it and the person he was trying to block was long gone from it. This is not intentional abuse - it's just incorrect use - a training issue and a solvable problem. I contend that 8 of the admin actions I documented from FM constituted abuse of the admin tools and 4 were incorrect, though not abusive, use. --B (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See my assessment, and examine all these assertions with care. .. dave souza, talk 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, wrt Ferrylodge, I meant "previous" to this arbcom request, not that the arbitration committee had predicted that FM would in the future block Ferrylodge and that such a block would be inappropriate. WRT to Rosalind Picard and James Tour, you are right that I missed that user and I have updated my presentation from "not a single" to "a single". Thank you for pointing him out, but it changes nothing I said. S-protecting an article to stop a user who is neither blocked nor banned at the time of the s-protection from editing an article is inappropriate. If FM had known that this was the reincarnation of a banned user, blocking him would have been fine, but s-protecting the article to stop someone from editing an article while they would be otherwise to edit (not blocked) is probably not a correct use of the tools. WRT to the IP indefblocks, I don't question the block, just the indefinite portion of it. IPs can change. That's not an abuse - it's an incorrect use, as I stated above. As for Schlafly, we will have to agree to disagree. I contend that he should have allowed an uninvolved administrator to handle it. --B (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the responses! This is exactly the sort of evaluation i hoped to provoke. I fully agree that the percentage is not really the issue, but the patterns. However it is often easier to find the patterns when you start from the whole picture. (imo) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of Evidence of Threats, presented by User:Filll, et al.

I'm primarily responding to these allegations by Filll which have been repeated by other parties in this case, hopefully to dispel the myth that Cla68 made any threats against anyone - since this seems to be being repeated endlessly in the hope that it will become true. Verifiability, not Wikiality or mud slinging, should be our guiding principle here.

“ Cla68 has gone to the press at least twice in the last 6 months about Wikipedia issues. The first time was in connection with the Durova situation, and the second time was to discourage people from donating funds to the Wikimedia Foundation (further details available on request).”

User:Filll, here.

I would request further details of this to verify. Preferably with diffs. Unsupported accusations aren't helpful, especially since "evidence on demand" means the statement becomes impossible to verify.

“ The current disturbing situation arose from a longtime campaign conducted by a community-banned/indefinitely blocked editor, User: Moulton, on Wikipedia Review. Cla68 responded by making what appeared to be a threat to out members of the ID Wikiproject to the press.”

User:Filll, here.

It appears that in the actual posting, here, Moulton is commenting on the fact that the referenced editors are close to being outed. In this context it is sufficient to note, as Cla68 has done, that his post was in reference to the preceding posts so as to clear this allegation of making threats. Everything which follows from this point is moot, since no threat was made and Cla68 has posted his regret at what appear to be poorly worded remarks. It appears that the only way this could be mistaken is if it were taken out of context by people determined to ignore WP:AGF.

It is telling that this sort of misinterpretation (which seems to be based on confirmation bias) is extended to other statements made:

“ "It's unfortunate that group [not defined] of editors' behavior related to Intelligent Design articles has become such a problem that uninvolved editors and admins like me [emphasis added] have noticed the problem and gotten involved to varying degrees. I hope that the editors in question are willing and able to correct their behavior on their own. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)"”

User:Filll, here, emphasis his.

If we were assuming good faith, perhaps the more obvious interpretation of this statement would have been parsed as such: "that (uninvolved editors and admins) like me".

“ Outing Wikipedians in the press can have a number of negative consequences. It can make it harder to recruit more editors, and make it harder to retain the editors we have. It goes against several Wikipedia policies. Even the threat to do so is a bannable offense: [88]. It can lead to harassment, embarassment, stalking, damage to professional and private lives of editors, identity theft, death threats and worse. Clearly, this sort of threat in an attempt to blackmail other editors should not be allowed, and should not be encouraged. If this sort of behavior is allowed to continue, more will adopt it and the threats will escalate.”

User:Filll, here.

Whilst the principles of this statement are valid, the application of it to this case appears to be little more than scaremongering. The rest of Filll's statement appears to consist of much the same scaremongering, appealing to fear in order to push for sanctions based on nothing more than a (seemingly either intentional or rooted in confirmation bias) misinterpretation of statements. Further, adding emphasis to statements in order to distort meaning is disingenuous in the extreme and I suggest that said statements as primary evidence should be examined on their own merit without commentary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I hope this helps. 129.67.162.133 (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Cla68 clearly made threats. Even when he later backpedaled and tried to blame it on Moulton (who actually was only describing his unsuccessful attempts to interest a journalist in this matter), Cla68 continued to say that, unless we did what he wanted, he would be forced to take action. In other words, he continued to make the threats. More importantly, they were not threats devoid of conditions - they were threats intended to coerce behaviour. I, for one, took them very seriously.

In addition, of course, Cla68 has only apologised for not choosing his words more carefully. In other words, an apology for getting caught. It isn't a rejection of the tactics underlying his threat...which, of course, he would have a hard time distancing himself from, since he has already used those tactics in the past.

It's pretty funny really, to see the casual dismissal of Filll's analysis as "scaremongering" from someone who is unwilling to log in. Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't have a user account. I'm an exopedian, merely stepping in to defend a fellow article creator (as much as it pains me to involve myself in wikipolitics). I would also look up the meaning of the word scaremongering, if I were you, since you apparently don't know what it means.

You're claiming that he clearly made threats. This is demonstrably wrong, since there appears to be room for interpretation here, and thus the statement and its interpretation is not clear in either the sense of non-obfuscated nor of obviously true. Again, I'd exhort you to Assume Good Faith, an excellent guideline which, if it had been followed, would have rendered this entire argument moot. If you are so adamant that you are correct, perhaps you should attempt to prove conclusively that there is no room for error. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well stated in my view by the anon. Due to recent interaction with Filll I also find the analysis particularly questionable; see for instance here and here, both fairly over-the-top threats, not to mention a habit of threatening all types of editors with "userification" and/or blocking.[89] [90] [91] [92] [93] Filll has apologized for the first of these, but I think a serious credibility problem with his interpretation of Cla's comments remains. Mackan79 (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the only post by Cla68 being referred to is [94], right? (I see that it was edited, but only right after being posted; note to self: "joined" date is not "posted" date!) Going back a page in the thread, I see one previous post by Cla68 reporting on the state of the article, some speculation by others about whether Rosalind Picard has contacted the press, and related discussion about whether it would end up there. Cla68's second post to the thread was the disputed one, in which he comments, in a slightly mocking tone, that the "other side" probably isn't aware of this. I don't see any implication that Cla68 would be the one to contact the press, and don't see why the post caused such an explosion. Do any of the other posters that talked about the press edit Wikipedia? If not, that would explain why Cla68 was targeted, but not why the response was so disproportionate. --NE2 10:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, Filll has expressed disdain for our policy of WP:AGF on numerous occasions, so of course he isn't going to assume good faith. The point the anon user makes is quite apt. The only way for this to be taken as a threat is to take it out of context. Clearly this is one of those instances where the irony mark would be appropriate, if it existed. If you read the entire thread, he is being rhetorical in his analysis of the other comments. He is clearly wondering if the walled garden of the ID project is even aware that their pointy behavior is souring the subject to the point that they or their colleagues might go to the press. That's it, Cla68's statement can not possibly be construed as a threat if we applied Occam's Razor to the entire context of the discussion. No more than someone saying: "if you continue to smoke 10 packs of cigarettes a day, you'll get cancer" or "if you continue to lie about it you'll get caught one day." It is an observation, laced with irony, not a subtle attempt at threatening others. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll's contribution lacks evidence for many of his statements, particularly the most destructive claims. To be treated with a pinch of salt. Neıl 龱 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashton1983's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

First, this seems to be mostly a duplicate of some of Felonious Monk's evidence, as they clearly used the same diffs and concluded that Cla68 somehow enjoyed it. I'll assume good faith and take it as a coincidence, but the fact that the same evidence is presented twice should not give it undue weight. Second, I think it is rather dangerous to psychoanalyze emotional states based off of one or two word edit summaries. It could be that Cla68 is enjoying it or it could be that he is truly shocked. It is important to note that some people genuinely feel like SV had a blind eye turned to her inappropriate behavior for many years. Being flabbergasted at the extent to which one finds that this happened is not a crime itself. Indeed, it is shocking because if it were any other editor, they would have been indef blocked by now. Arbcom should not try to divine what Cla68 was feeling when he discovered the evidence. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain ArbCom will not try to; and will not give undue weight to repeat-evidence here. But other than that, it's a good point to raise in analysis of evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In his more recent addition, Ashton picks two points in which Cla68 referred to SV as having lied, and attempts to show that they are not actually lies and therefore that Cla68 has failed to assume good faith. At least for this arbitration I'd first like to suggest we drop these appeals to AGF, at the same time as SV's whole case is based on accusing Cla68 of "prolonged attempts to make the project a toxic place for others." This is not to denigrate the guideline or the concept which I think are extremely important, but to say at least in an RfC or ArbCom case where the whole point is to address editor behavior, that ABF as an infraction doesn't apply in the same manner. In terms of whether they are lies or not, I tend to agree these two are not lies, though the latter about living in Utah appears to be a careless comment. If the idea is that evidence of SV breaching community trust is lacking, however, I disagree, and I'd invite Ashton to address some of the other points in Cla68's evidence or my own. If he would explain how he came to take an interest in the case just over a month after joining Wikipedia that might also help.[95] Mackan79 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Tony Sidaway

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As I read TS he seems to be saying that Wikipedia needs to fight fire with fire, that incidental damage is to be expected, and that anything which gets in the way of this needs to be quashed. With respect for Tony’s greater experience to mine, this is in my view exactly what has gotten Wikipedia into some trouble in the last couple of years. Wikipedia is an academic undertaking, remains extremely appreciated and well-liked by the public, and in my view does much more to foster that good will (and indeed to undermine critics) by acting as a charity or a university would than as an entrenched political campaign. This also means, among other things, that we need a reasonable environment in which to edit, which incidentally seems to be all that Cla68 and some others of us are seeking. Mackan79 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

His "evidence" is not worthy of much notice, given that it fails to include any actual evidence at all, just his own unsupported opinions. About all he's doing is spreading the meme to the effect that any ideas he dislikes can be discredited by claiming that they originated on the hated BADSITES. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think I agree with both Mackan and Dan here. Everyone involved in this has done a huge amount more for the project than I have, but seem to have lost sight of the forest for the trees. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony's evidence is not evidence at all; it is opinion and conjecture. Neıl 龱 10:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In communications with Tony about this, he indicated that (in my interpretation of his words) he feels it's evidence, because it's evidence of his opinion, regardless of the lack of any factual material (diffs, quotes and the like). I'm not sure I agree with that view. I think it's OK to let some opinion leak in to one's evidentiary statements, within reason, but that pure opinion doesn't belong in the evidence section, regardless of whose opinion it is. I'd say it was better placed in the workshop's principles or findings sections. I would urge ArbCom to disregard this "evidence" (quotes placed for pejorative effect) entirely. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is his opinion important enough to be evidence? I can only see that being true if he's a party, which he isn't...but he just added himself for some reason. I guess now we can use the fact that he contributes non-evidence as evidence as evidence of his failure to provide evidence... --NE2 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

His adding himself as a party strikes me as spurious, a clerk should address that matter... ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the kind of evidence that doesn't need diffs...seems to me to be simply a summary of what should be well known as facts.--MONGO 14:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that they are not facts in the sense of being universally agreed to "ground truths" (to turn a phrase I heard somewhere :) ), they are in dispute. ++Lar: t/c 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So I could just add "[attack redacted to protect the sensitivities of the thin-skinned]" to the evidence section, and I wouldn't have to back this up with anything? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bait not taken...--MONGO 17:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But point not addressed. Everything brought up before Arbcom as evidence needs to be supported in some way with diffs and/or links. If something is unsupported then it should be disregarded. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of Wikipedia:Verifiability, a core principle of the encyclopaedia as a whole. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"A man may go through life, systematically keeping out of view all that might cause a change in his opinions, and if he only succeeds... I do not see what can be said against his doing so. It would be an egotistical impertinence to object that his procedure is irrational, for that only amounts to saying that his method of settling belief is not ours. He does not propose to himself to be rational, and, indeed, will often talk with scorn of man's weak and illusive reason. So let him think as he pleases." -Charles Peirce, On the Fixation of Belief. Amerique^dialectics 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

that we need a reasonable environment in which to edit, which incidentally seems to be all that Cla68 and some others of us are seeking So to create a "reasonable environment" he attacks others? Does that sound reasonable and rational to you? Does it sound like it would create a reasonable environment in which to edit?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Your position may be improved if you tried to sound reasonable yourself. These articles may be helpful: argument, evidence. Amerique^dialectics 19:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, while Cla's exact methods are suboptimal, that doesn't mean he's wrong with everything. Right? If and when one of our top FA writers has serious concerns about other editors, we should listen carefully. Moreover, many of the allegations he makes and (more or less successfully) backs up with diffs have been brought up numerous times before and are shared by a fair amount of decent people (and of course also by many disgruntled trolls, vandals, harassers, etcpp - which is still not a reason to dismiss his input wholesale). dorftrottel (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your statement "If and when one of our top FA writers has serious concerns about other editors, we should listen carefully." But I'd also agree with a statement "If and when one of our top FA writers attempts to attack and intimidate other editors, we should hold them to account as we would anyone else." If writing FAs give someone get a free pass on conduct, I am willing to stand corrected. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Raymond, but a free pass for the one comment that he immediately clarified? It would be nice at least from my perspective if those criticizing Cla68 would clarify whether they're just talking about the news story, or if they're also trying to say he should never have taken any issue with the general editing patterns on these articles. Filll, for one, starts off talking about the first, but then clearly meanders into the second, claiming this shows that "Cla68 apparently reserves the right to personally mete out punishment as some form of 'frontier justice'".[96] And yet Filll's own comments, from just a few weeks:[97][98] [99] [100] [101] [102] Perhaps you're unfamiliar with this kind of commentary in these related articles, but when the same people who talk like this (I don't believe it includes you, but it isn't limited to Filll either) claim "intimidation" from Cla68 for whatever he's even supposed to have said, it's hard to know what to take seriously. Mackan79 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, you're absolutely correct. Quality contributions are not a free pass for bad behaviour. dorftrottel (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

The factual parts of my evidence are not in dispute. Cla68 has indeed relied upon, and sometimes included within his edits to Wikipedia articles, the most unreliable and abhorrent material from websites specifically set up to attack his fellow Wikipedians, and he has consistently represented these appalling attacks as worthy of consideration.

The fact that the opinions expressed in the evidence are my opinions is also undisputed. It is all therefore evidence of a factual nature, though some of it is facts about the opinion of a longtime observer of these attacks on Wikipedians by other Wikipedians and by trolls whose opinions those Wikipedians have chosen to amplify on Wikipedia. The only dispute can therefore be over the emphasis placed in my statement on certain facts that I feel others have either neglected or glossed over entirely.

By the way I am not saying that Wikipedia must "fight fire with fire". There is nothing in my evidence to support any call for extreme action. My advice would be to take certain similar recent cases involving long-respected contributors as a model.

Indeed I believe it is enough that the Committee make it plain that abhorrent behavior towards other Wikipedians, however good one's contributions are in other areas, is not permissible. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, there are no factual parts of your evidence - you have simply dumped a (hyperbolic and untrue) opinion piece onto the evidence page and stated "I believe this, so it's fact". No diffs/links = not evidence. Neıl 龱 18:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're denying that Cla68 has imported into Wikipedia unsuitable material from sites specifically set up to attack Wikipedians, I'm surprised. This is not a matter for dispute and certainly not a matter on which the Committee is likely to entertain serious doubts. -Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of this, other than saying it is so? Your word is not sufficient proof. Neıl 龱 19:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is not a matter of dispute (which is obviously in doubt here, since there are dissenting editors questioning your opinion) then perhaps you would be so kind as to provide specific diffs and outline exactly how those diffs support your "evidence"? --217.44.80.4 (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I deny that "Cla68 has imported into Wikipedia unsuitable material from sites specifically set up to attack Wikipedians" as I'm not aware of any "sites specifically set up to attack Wikipedians", or that Cla68 has imported any "unsuitable material" from anywhere. Please be more specific in your evidence. Despite your alleging it is not a matter for dispute, it certainly is (a matter for dispute) and if it's not a matter that the committee entertains doubts about, then we've elected the wrong committee. ++Lar: t/c 21:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So is there according evidence or not? Has it been presented to the ArbCom? dorftrottel (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is any (I don't know if there is), it has not been presented yet. Neıl 龱 09:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Just because attack sites with scathing parodies of Wikipedians are horrible does not mean we should ignore potential evidence of wrong doing that they have collected nor should any coincidentally similar evidence be dismissed. You can't rob a store and then complain that if a video that caught you in the act was made by someone with a stolen camcorder, it should not be used at the trial. Let the evidence stand on its own merit and if it can be proven, then where it came from is irrelevant. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that what Tony is referring to is the Mantanmoreland case, and he's jumping to the erroneous conclusion that, because ~~the fix was in~~the outcome of the case in the end did not support the accusations, there was therefore never any legitimacy to the accusations and they are therefore entirely "unsuitable material". --Random832 (contribs) 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with randoms evaluation. Interestingly Mantanmoreland appears on his way to a site ban after some additional abusive sockpuppeting (shocked I am......not). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for asking, but could I have a brief explain of these two diffs, random? [103][104]. It would help (by shedding light on some of the beliefs floating round this case) to clarify what the replaced part "because the fix is in" was intended to convey or what belief of some user it referred to, in the original. (Not sarcastic, it's not entirely obvious and I feel given the nature of the case I'd like to ask directly rather than guess.) Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is my observation that some recent cases have involved the use of cryptic code that has the effect, whatever the intention, of obscuring rather than illuminating. Explanation of the meaning of these obscure terms, in the context in which they are used, would always be welcome. FOr my own part, I'll state that obviously the issues I refer to have little to do with the Mantanmoreland case per se, though in that case as in others there is evidence of serious issues with Cla68's conduct. The outcome of that case was due, I think we can all agree, to some very careful thinking by the arbitration committee, and not to anything Cl68 did. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you're either kidding or— no, you're definitely kidding. dorftrottel (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I find myself in agreement with Tony! Let's deconstruct and see why. The outcome of that case (a failure, and waste of the community's time that for the most part did not address the underlying issues, nor censure those protecting Mantanmoreland and his socks) was due to some very careful thinking by ArbCom (careful, yes, very very careful... but completely wise? maybe not so much) and not to anything Cla68 did (yes. They failed to listen. More's the pity, really, for if ArbCom had listened a bit more closely perhaps a fair bit of everyone's time would have been saved). I think what galls you the most, Tony, is how RIGHT Cla68 is about so many matters, and that admitting it would be very difficult for you and for others. Admitting one is wrong is always difficult, to be sure. However, repeating the meme that there are issues with his conduct is really rather of a red herring that no longer fools or distracts anyone. Stop repeating. Give some diffs... or find something else to say. Like maybe discussing what "obscure terms" you are referring to and giving some cites for their use and for your concerns. ++Lar: t/c 15:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lar, my friend, you're claiming that I think the mantanmoreland case wasted the community's time? I disagree. I wish you wouldn't purport to represent my beliefs. Please don't play silly political games with Wikipedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know what you meant. I suppose I could have said "I strongly disagree", and just pointed out that they were false. but I decided it would be more interesting to show that your words, with the appropriate subtext (which subtext I know you disagree with, but which I suspect is actually far closer to the widely held views than the opposite) could be twisted around to be true, at least partly for the shock value of apparently agreeing when really I wasn't. To be clear then: I feel your summation is false on a number of levels. The case was a failure, and a waste of time. ArbCom's careful triangulation and avoidance of a finding of socking as well as avoidance of imposing meaningful remedies was a failure and a waste of time. Cla68's contributions to that case, and to other activities outside of articlespace such as RfCs, ANI discussions and the like, contrary to your characterization, have been extremely helpful, apt, sound, civil, well reasoned, and entirely within our norms and customs. If there are any exceptions, they are exceedingly minor. Tony, you have arrayed yourself on the wrong side, my friend. If there is anyone playing silly buggers here, it's you, not I. You need to internalise that, and move on. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony made a habit at the time of that case of disingenuously complaining about the abbrebiations like "MM", "SH", "GW" that were used in that case, ignoring that it would have been extremely tedious to type out the names (Mantanmoreland is 14 characters) in full dozens of times per paragraph, and the BLP issues inherent with spelling out the name that was abbreviated as "GW". I think this is almost certainly what he is referring to as "obscure terms" and "cryptic codes". --Random832 (contribs) 19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find myself being accused of being "disingenuous". (I'm not disingenuous, just puzzled, dismayed and somewhat disgusted) because I queried the rampant use of cryptic initialisms, which if Random832 is to believed were some attempt to get around the libel laws. ("The BLP issues inherent with spelling out the name that was abbreviated as "GW"'"). Random832 means Gary Weiss and obviously the BLP issues are only there if you're being a bit of an arsehole about it, accusing him by dishonest means). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP is not the same as Libel. And it's reasonable to be able to want to talk about the possibility without being sure whether it's true or not, whereas you only want it to show up on google for the name if you really are sure. And claiming REPEATEDLY to not know that "SH" means "SamiHarris" after being REPEATEDLY told what it is is nothing but disingenuous. --Random832 (contribs) 01:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Spot on. Tony was probably just playing silly buggers with the rest of the community. Use of initialisms saves time, and space, and it also is more BLP friendly in the long run. ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to have to defend that wording (hence why I didn't leave it in place), but... It was very clear at the time that some arbitrators were relying on their own beliefs about the users in question rather than on the actual evidence - for example, in some instances the same arbitrators who were dismissing the evidence against them as being poor statistics were at the same time claiming that their own [definitely non-rigorous] gut feeling based on a body of text that none of us, and as far as I know not all of the other arbitrators, had seen, was that their writing styles indicated they were different (and not even acknowledging Durova pointing out that a professional writer can easily write in multiple 'voices'). Combined with the fact that some arbitrators who definitely had a conflict of interest did not recuse, all this does indeed point to it at least being a reasonable belief that the case was run in a somewhat biased manner. --Random832 (contribs) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Harrison's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tom Harrison's section adds to FM's allegation that Cla68 has wikistalked SV to four pages, with one or possibly two additional examples of AN discussions where he says Cla68 followed SV. Four full links with dates are provided, but at least three are from the same discussion in April of last year. Since no one has addressed this aspect of FM's evidence, I'll also note that the four pages there -- two policy pages (of which I believe SV has edited nearly all), Animal testing and Holocaust -- are each heavily edited, and that Cla68's edit to the last had nothing to do with SV (Cla has incidentally mentioned recently that a couple ID-related editors showed up and made helpful edits on articles he was working on, and that he took this as a show of good faith). In one article, then, we have Cla68 choosing to express disagreement with SV, for reasons that he explained on the talk page,[105] while the rest of this appears to be a lot more talk about virtually nothing.

As one other point, TH states that Cla68's comment about Swalwell was intended to draw attention to SV's believed location. Cla may respond, but this doesn't follow, and fails to consider the extent people have been fed up with broad attempts to "deny" that objectively harm the encyclopedia, particularly in a situation where the reasoning can't even be explained. At the same time, I recently witnessed SV asking another editor extremely politely how he'd feel if someone assembled his personal information from his edits and posted it on Wikipedia, while fully knowing this topic had made him extremely uncomfortable (point 9 here). In regard to Cla68, SV has said in his RfA that his behavior was so inappropriate she briefly wondered if he was WordBomb, whom she described as a "very abusive sockpuppet and cyber stalker." Was there subtext to any of these? Was SV trying to make PM uncomfortable? Of course there is a line; if Cla68 asked the same question on SV's talk page out of the blue I'd say he crossed it. Otherwise we generally AGF in these situations, if for no other reason than that differences in assessment seem to derive mostly from whose concerns one takes more seriously. Mackan79 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question to the Arbitrators

Is it within the remit of Arbcom to censure editors who bring evidence which is misleading, unsupported by diffs, unsupported by diffs given, disruptive or completely irrelevant? Considering the size of this case such evidence could only make the committee's job harder, so I was wondering whether it would be appropriate to warn editors against frivolous accusations and speculation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The aim of Arbitration cases, is roughly, that we're acting when the community hasn't handled a situation well and doesn't look like it will readily resolve the matter, or where it is urgent and divisive and needs some kind of categorical approach to prevent more harm. We try to find a reasonable way through most of the log-jam. That often includes looking at users whose conduct is somehow preventing that happening, or who act unhelpfully (perhaps in good faith but still unhelpfully) if necessary. So yes, we do look at all aspects that seem relevant, to try and understand what we might do at the given time, in the matter. That's general, and applies to all cases. And obviously sometimes, there may be claims that don't add much. It varies.

The other aspect of the answer is that how users act, also says a lot about how the dispute has managed not to be 'solved' so far, or hidden dynamics behind the scenes, or evidence of conducts that may have been hard to show clearly in /Evidence, and that's often useful or critical information too. It tells us what might not work, or pitfalls to be aware of, and can help clarify if some behavioral claim is well founded. (Classic case: user:DPetersons actions at RFAR (July-Aug 2007, arb+community banned) were the strongest evidence that he was indeed an edit warrior and sock-puppeteer with scant interest in communal norms. His misleading claims backed by diffs that supported nothing on the case pages, and constant personal attacks, disruption, and refusal to engage in dialog even at Arbitration, probably formed some of the best evidence that he was simply not going to listen to anything less than a ban.) We do aim to get a good understanding, and that's often useful to be aware of.

Final thing though, if it really does go too far (eg, it's just plain disruptive and "point proven"), then anyone can ask a clerk or arbitrator if they could say something, or deal with it. RFAR cases need to be fairly uncensored to do the job, and will give a lot more leeway than most pages, but even so, that probably shouldn't mean being a platform for blatant disgusting behavior that's already fully played out once on the pages and has been "seen through".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think it's clearly within the remit of ArbCom to do so if it wished. But going down the path of seriously digging into what evidence fits that description could make the case even longer... it may be better to trust to ArbCom's wisdom to disregard red herrings and come to sane and sound conclusions even in the face of some less than helpful input. ++Lar: t/c 11:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Plus, even if some of the evidence on this page could be described in these terms, it doesn't address motive. Is it an attempt to disrupt? An attempt to discredit? Or do contributor's believe the correctness of their evidence is self-evident? I think if ArbCom starts grading the evidence it could discourage people from contributing it in the first place. --InkSplotch (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with lar and inksplotch. While tempting, it's not a path I think we'd like to be on. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some users who habitually bring poor-quality evidence to arbitration and to other processes, and that this might be worth examining in its own case or in an RFC, but I don't think it's within the scope of this case. --Random832 (contribs) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely to be worth bothering about. If their evidence is poor quality, any evidence in the future will be likely to be more heavily scrutinised. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another small question to the Arbitrators

Do you actually get the chance to read these pages? There's an awful lot to plough through, and it occurred to me that it's at least possible some of you don't get the chance to read it before voting. Perhaps you could put my mind at rest by signing below? Thanks!

Comment by Arbitrators:

varies by Arbitrator and by the type of work each person is doing on the case. When there's a lot it does sometimes get "skimmed", but you'd be surprised, we do notice things even on long workshop pages :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

does seem to vary! I'm heartened by the response from you, FT2 - and I recall that in a fairly recent matter you were the only respondent to an email I sent to the arbcom mailing list - I wonder if any other arbs could put their sig.s above? cheers (from a non-arb! sorry!), Privatemusings (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold, and suggest that no other arb has read this far - this relates to a point I'm going to try and make below about the functionality of pages like this! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your're wrong, but there's no particular need to comment, especially in a big bushel of noise like this page. Mostly we sit back, watch, listen, and think, and let everyone else do a lot of talking at this stage. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

happy to be wrong - chalk up another arb to the reading list! - your comments provoke some interesting questions in my mind - along the lines of what exactly are the stages of this process? does this process work well if described some three weeks in (maybe 4? can't remember!) as a 'big bushel of noise'? - and how long do the arbs plan on sitting back for? I think this case demonstrates a lack of clear direction and leadership in some of our processes - and I think the problem may be systemic.... this is all for another time and place of course - I'll see you there, when I can figure out where and when that is! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

There's so much going on here - I think it's at least possible that we lost the arbs a while back! - Privatemusings (talk) 03:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no way that all the arbitrators are reading all of the material that's here. I presume they do something similar to what my classmates and I did in a college course with a particularly onerous reading list: we divvied up the reading assignments, each of us read a fraction of them and shared our notes with the others. In practice some of us read a lot and others read nothing and just mooched. Of course, I could be completely wrong here, and I intend no disrespect whatsoever. I would imagine there's also a lot of chatter going on behind the scenes on the mailing list. The key point is that the arbitrators have to focus on the critical questions: desysop or not; civility parole or not. It's hard to focus on that when you're reading evidence by 25 different users relating to the conduct of five different administrators (SV, FM, JzG, Viridae, Crum375). If anything, I hope for the arbitrators' own sanity that they haven't read every word of this mess. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of one of the absurdly long Mantanmoreland talkpages I also muttered something along the lines of "lets all give up, its not as if the Arbs are reading this" and was startled to discover a couple of them posting indignant "no we are" messages a few hours later. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I forget now who it was, but in the most recent arbcom elections, one of the concerns about one of the sitting arbiters was that he had said that he never reads workshop pages. --B (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Only Raul was reconfirming at the most recent one afaik. Viridae ^Talk 11:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I understood that Raul was not, but I may be mistaken. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgot the "ing" Viridae ^Talk 14:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, this reads more as a "venting" page, than an evidence page. This happens in many ArbCom cases, so let editors have their say. The ArbCom is very probably quite familiar with all protagonists and will be able to make a good assessment and a suitable ruling. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Familiarity can lead to complacency and pre-judging based on opinion, if that argument is taken to its illogical conclusion. You're right that the arbs' experience will be invaluable in this case, but sometimes it's useful to have input on evidence from other parties, so you can look at things from an angle you hadn't before considered. This is especially useful in a massive case such as this, where there is a lot of evidence to analyse. But I suppose that ultimately it's up to the arbs as to which analysis they heed and which they do not, just as they will in considering the evidence. In the end it's nice to know that the Arbs (well, at least FT2) do read these pages since they represent the input of the community. --129.67.162.133 (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mongo's evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thanks to whoever did this section I was going to point all this out myself, but I made my friend her birthday dinner and came back to find it done for me. Viridae ^Talk 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Protected Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (albeit on a version he disagreed with) [106] after he had previously reverted a change by SlimVirgin [107] and after another edit to the page the previous day [108]"

Protecting to a version one doesn't agree with does not show abuse to me but more shows willing to concede to someone else.

He edited the page not long before that so a neutral admin should have done the protection.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

But he also protected a version he didn't agree with. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter..that was one of the basis's for my desysopping...[109]--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Protected Wikipedia:No personal attacks [110] after now indefinitely banned editor Miltopia (banned by Jimbo Wales and others...[111]) edited the page, on a version that Viridae had argued in favor of previously [112]...see the version Miltopia had edit warred over just prior to the page protection by Viridae. [113] Viridae later made it clear he endorsed versions of the policy that were opposed to preventing external links from being used to harass our contributors.[114], [115] which coincides with his prior page protection on a similar version."

There was an edit war that MONGO himself was involved in. There was at least two weeks between Viridae's talk page comment and the protection. Secondly, this edit appears to me Viridae following consensus. I'm also failing to see how this was bad.

Admins must not protect pages they have had involvement in. That is why we have RFPP.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A talk page comment made two weeks prior to protection with no activity on the page or the related talk page between the the protection is still involved? That's like getting into a content dispute with someone, then two weeks later they make a blatant personal attack on someone else and blocking them for that attack. The talk page comment and the protection are two completely different things. One was opinion, the other was process. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Same...[116]--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any situations similar to the one mentioned above on that RFAR page. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Reverted a block made by JzG (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) on 9/11 conspiracy theorist sock account Sannleikur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 5 days after the block was done by JzG[117]. Discussion as stated by JzG indicates Viridae did this to aggrevate."

I believe Viridae's unblock was correct given the lack of evidence provided against the sock originally. Secondly, JzG just claimed that Viridae did that to piss him off. However, that's a claim not backed by evidence. If one were to wheel war me (with valid reason), I could easily say that person did that just to spite me and assume bad faith like JzG did.

Sure...JzG was able to see an obvious 9/11 CT POV pusher and as had happened numerous times, Viridae's response was to unblock, immediately..(see Felonious Monks evidence as well) after posting a comment about socks being blocked by JzG at wikipedia review.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Immediately? JzG's block was made on the 19th. The unblock was made in the 25th. 6 day gap there. I would have unblocked too considering the initial lack of evidence, does that make me abusive? Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Immediately after he posted at WR about it...yeah...see FM's evidence regarding this as well as I said.--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

IN this case there was no evidence of sockpuppetry given despite a request for evidence from JzG. He simply deleted my request for evidence and swore at me. Since there was to that point no indications of sockpuppetry and the blocking admin didnt have anything to give, I unblocked. Viridae ^Talk 13:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"Reverted 5 more blocks made by JzG without discussion...full thread at AN/I here."

Leaves out this discussion here and here (the actual CU request, which cleared the people of being socks, which JzG supposedly missed. The blocks themselves were originally discussed here, with serious questions regarding JzG's actions posed here

Admins should not unblock blocked editors withouit first contacting the blocking admin or gaining a consensus first via a noticeboard.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If you got blocked as a sock, then it was found via CU you weren't, wouldn't you want to be unblocked right away or wait for a discussion and further decrease your motivation to come back? Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Then tell arbitrator JPGordon he's wrong about admin needing to discuss rolling back other admin actions "OK, now sit down. There's a difference between "standing up for the rights of many", and specifically targeting the actions of an admin based upon discussion at an attack site. As already stated, there are well over a thousand admins here; any one of them would have been a better candidate to analyze Guy's actions than Viridae. This sort of cowboy play doesn't work well either for developing consensus or developing community. Reverting admin actions without discussion is the sort of thing that inevitably leads to desysopping; are we sure that's the direction we want to take this?" [in this thread--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

MONGO take a look at the thread I mentioned in that one - where the CU results were posted. It had been discussed to death, there was strong support for the unblocks based on the CU clearing those five. I simply happened to be the next admin along when the unblock was requested, something JzG couldnt handle - he of course took it as a personal insult that his blocks had been overturned. Viridae ^Talk 13:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Point is...why you?--MONGO 15:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That was clearly explained at the time, I happened to catch the request to have them unblocked on my watchlist. As noted above JzG cannot stand to have his judgement questioned by anyone - so no matter who overturned they would have got a similar response. Viridae ^Talk 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"[118] Misused rollback after I removed a comment from SlimVirgin's page regarding Cla68...I had been asked privately to remove it."

If SV privately asked MONGO to remove the edit... how was Viridae supposed to know it was supposed to be gone?

It should be obvious by my edit summary prior to Viridae's misuse of rollback (only use rollback to revert obvious vandalism BTW) that Slim was simply tired of Cla68 related threads on her talkpage.--MONGO 06:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the fact remains there was no evidence she had asked you to remove it. Kwsn (Ni!) 07:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

So what... my edit wasn't vandalism anyway...rollback is to be used only to revert vandalism.--MONGO 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually removing or refactoring someone else talk page comments on someone elses talk page without their permission is vandalism! Viridae ^Talk 12:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This section says you shouldn't remove people's comments without permission. No public permission from SV was given for you to remove them, nor did Cool Hand Luke say it was ok for you to do it from what I can see. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rollback feature makes it clear...my edit wasn't vandalism by any stretch.--MONGO 03:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... run that by me again? CHL is a user in good standing... SlimVirgin did not request the removal that anyone can see publicly, so your characterizing what was done as problematic is quite a stretch. Slim's undoing it is fine, her page. But your undo said merely "CHL, please...I think there has been enough regarding Cla68 here"... that is not for you to decide. If your summary included a "per private request" notation, that would be different. You're stretching for fault I think. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no abuse presented by the evidence here, not that I can tell anyway. Kwsn (Ni!) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[119]"Overloooking the gross incivility given your circumstances, however you didnt provide the requested evidence so I have unblocked. Please remember that wikipedia is not therapy." (during the period immediately following the death of JzG's father and after JzG had reverted him [120]...see above at User:Sannleikur block JzG did on 9/11 CTer.

In this particular exchange, all the incivility I can see is on the part of JzG, who said "Fuck off back to Wikipedia Review". I'm sorry about the death of his father, but that unfortunately does not give you an unlimited "Get Out of Incivility Free Card". *Dan T.* (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I had almost the same set of diffs ready that FM has posted but didn't notice his evidence until after I started posting mine...I saw no reason to repeat the same info, hence the shortness of my section about Viridae. The combined evidence is pretty indicative that Viridae is hardly an explenary administrator.[121]--MONGO 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Exemplary? (as opposed to ex-plenary). We have very few exemplary administrators - this is why they are known as exemplary. I would agree the evidence confirms Viridae is not exemplary. I do not believe it suggests he is an unusually poor administrator. Your evidence - the below for example - is also not examplary:

(from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Viridae_is_incivil - [122]"Overloooking the gross incivility given your circumstances, however you didnt provide the requested evidence so I have unblocked. Please remember that wikipedia is not therapy." (during the period immediately following the death of JzG's father and after JzG had reverted him [123]...see above at User:Sannleikur block JzG did on 9/11 CTer.

Viridae was right to contact Guy - had he not informed Guy that a block he had made had been undone, Viridae would have been pilloried for not following WP:BLOCK. And the diff from Guy that you dismiss as "a revert" ([124]) had the pithy edit summary "Fuck off back to Wikipedia Review". It was at this point Viridae (possibly ill-advisedly) left a second note saying he would overlook the incivility, and to note that Wikipedia is not therapy. The follow up edit from Guy ([125]) was again far worse ("Fuck off and never ever post here ever again, period. You are persona non grata"). It was at that point I blocked Guy for 24 hours ([126]) and asked him not to use foul edit summaries again, which was, of course, swiftly reverted (both my note and the block itself). Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/JzG2#More_diffs_raised_on_ANI and evidence on this RFArb contain numerous, numerous examples of Guy's conduct continuing since the filing of the RFC concerning his behaviour. This suggests he either a) has failed to learn to conduct himself civilly, b) believes he can get away with it in the current climate, or c) honestly believes his conduct is appropriate. If it's a) or b), there is still scope for improvement. If it's c), the conclusion is Guy can't be trusted with the admin tools, at the very least. Enablement from a minority of editors probably contributes heavily to Guy's issues (plenty of examples of this on this very page). Neıl 龱 10:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, no one else is better fit to "deal" with these alleged issues of Guy than Viridae, of course. I think the evidence that Viridae has been looking for, gunning for, seeking out reasons to, "do something" about Guy are pretty evident and one would have to be blind to not see them. As I stated, my evidence presentation was stopped by me since Felonious Monk already had even more than I did and there was no reason to repeat it.--MONGO 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I just note that the "wikipedia is not therapy" was a badly worded way of saying "you are still required to take responsibility of your admin actions regardless of your personal circumstances - if you can't then please don't perform them" I know it was taken the wrong way, and apologise for that. Viridae ^Talk 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - it would have been better if you had said that. Neıl 龱 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

THat was explained at the time though. Viridae ^Talk 09:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Wikigiraffes

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikigiraffes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a freshly registered account through which BLP violations were made at Julian Baggini. The "evidence" presented by Wikigiraffes contains no hint of any misbehaviour on SlimVirgin's part, quite to the contrary. Her sound decision to revert the BLP-violating additions was not just editorial discretion, but in fact the editorial duty of anyone who has the page watchlisted (which she as the original article creator most likely has). A short discussion at the article talk page resulted in general agreement both with the revert and the article protection. 78.34.142.24 (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (= dorftrottel (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

I'm agreeing with Dorf here, but one good incident does not excuse a long running past of bad ones. Kwsn (Ni!) 19:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't giving the impression of trying to do that. Quite to the contrary, I think most of the evidence is 100% valid and thoroughly confirms the existence of a long-running problem. All the more, it's imho important to weed out any invalid accusations so as to prevent them from spoiling —or from being used to illegitimately discredit— the valid ones. dorftrottel (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've written a slightly longer message on Dorftrottel's talkie page -but the one point I would like to make here is that I was NOT challenging the "decision to revert the BLP-violating additions". To say that this was what I was doing is to misunderstand my position. I was challenging the decision to block me from further editing of the page. The only justification of rthis would have been had I ried to 'revert' the edits, which I did not.

Secondly, I have protested the tampering by 'persons unkown' of the edit history. As I recall events unfolding, all my edits were deleted by Hickluhup, (who has now dmysteriously disappered as a user). Slim did not therefore save the Wikipedia from my edits, as they had already gone. He merely blocked me from editing the page. That was the complaint. This ruling does not seem to me to address it.

86.220.76.189 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this sums up my position rather nicely! "Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute."

Perhaps I should just confirm that the above comment 86.220.76.189 is mine.

Wikigiraffes (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The posting at my talk page can be found here, my reply is here. dorftrottel (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of evidence presented by FM (analysis by Viridae)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Moved to /Evidence per note left for me by Viridae, and his comments below. If incorrect, please revert. Updated link: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Analysis of evidence presented by FM (analysis by Viridae). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Viridae, this is getting out of hand. "If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section." on the evidence page. Please don't use the workshop page for this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah thats a better idea - will move it when im finished. I was however just taking a lead from the above sections. Viridae ^Talk 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually can I have a clerk weigh in about how they would like to see this done? Viridae ^Talk 13:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this just a simple duplicate (+ heavy formatting) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Viridae. If so, just delete it and link to the evidence page in its place. If not, update the evidence page. (Evidence is easier to read without all the bold, BTW). My $0.02. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a duplicate with the addition of Viridae's responses to each point in bold. I would suggest instead of bold, using a different colour (say, italic and blue); it's easier on the eye than the bold. Neıl 龱 14:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Its a duplicate of the evidence from FM about me with my comments in bold. If someone could show me how to do a colour, I will do that instead of bold. Viridae ^Talk 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

V states that he "used to stop by CAT:RFU frequently." This is his reasoning for his unblock on "Heatedissuepuppet." This is not supported by the facts - specifically, prior to his unblock of Heatedissuepuppet on 16 May 2007, he unblocked 17 times to reblock, 5 of his own blocks, 1 time to revert Fred Bauder's blocking test, 3 autoblocks, and then, in January 2007, over 4 months prior to his May unblock, a Cat:RFU unblock (70.83.4.91). After the Heatedissuepuppet unblock, it does appear that V becomes active in RFU, but the Heatedissuepuppet hardly indiciative of a user that "used to stop by CAT:RFU frequently," as opposed to a user that "seeks out ways to countermand JzG at all costs." PouponOnToast (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a useful methodology. The VAST majority of cases that anyone handles at CAT:RFU result in declining the request. So to determine whether Viridae was cherry picking JzG's blocks, you would want to see how many unblock requests he/she handled. So if he/she handled 20 total requests and 10 of them were JzG's, that might be an issue. If he/she handled 200 total requests and 5 of them were JzG's, that's not an issue. Even this is a meaningless methodology from a statistics standpoint for a number of reasons, but at least gives us more interesting data to look at. After all, the same statistics could be used simply to claim that if Viridae overturns JzG more than anyone else, that the underlying cause is that JzG makes more questionable blocks than anyone else. (I'm not making this argument, just saying that it is one possible interpretation of the data.) --B (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In the ~~three~~month and a half prior to the 16 May 2007 Heatedissuepuppet edit, Viridae did not reject a single unblock request. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm, the day before that unblock, Viriday rejected a request from Lewisskinner - 20:15, 15 May 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Lewisskinner‎ (→Blocked: unblock reviewed). A cursory glance at Viridae's edit summaries in user talk edits shows that he/she reviewed plenty of unblock requests. --B (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That review began after the Heatedissuessock block review was accepted. I do see an April 1 request that V took from a user he had dealt with before, and two in early march, so my timeframe was overstated. My point that V did not "stop by CAT:RFU frequently," however, holds. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I did actually - but 1. most of the time other people beat me to the unblock or decline (the contents of CAT:RFU are reported to an IRC channel) and 2. I wouldnt always unblock unless I was pretty clear about what was going on - leave it to someone else who might know more. Viridae ^Talk 21:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reflection by the parties

This section is reserved for parties to post a short statement reflecting on the Evidence presented against themselves. See also this proposed finding of fact.

[edit] Reflection by Cla68

I've commented on FeloniousMonk's (FM) and other evidence here [127] and in the paragraph immediately above that section. In summary, I stated that I don't think FM's evidence is actually evidence of much wrongdoing on my part. Nevertheless, I did provide a response or explanation for some of the evidence presented. In addition, I admitted to several uncivil comments or personal attacks and apologized. Cla68 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reflection by {Username}

[edit] General discussion

[edit] Remarks by Alanyst

These may be really crazy or stupid ideas, or they might be unconventional enough to work where traditional approaches would falter. I offer them in this section since IMO they're not sufficiently refined for the actual proposals section. Feel free to critique heavily. I offer these in good faith and if this section proves to be a liability to this case, I invite clerks to remove it and let the rest of the case proceed.

Without further ado, my thoughts:

A lot of the case focuses on misuse of admin tools across the board, with evidence to support many of the claims of misuse. How about a remedy where all involved administrators are desysopped without prejudice and encouraged to re-apply immediately (or after a short interval on the scale of days or weeks)? By not favoring any party it might make the sanction more palatable. And then the community can decide whom they trust with the tools.
If I had to characterize this case and the ID project case in three words, they would be "atmosphere of suspicion". The fault line seems to be the editors' tolerance level for Wikipedia Review: JzG, SlimVirgin, and FeloniousMonk all hate the site, while Cla68 and Viridae have accounts there and have taken seriously some of the complaints voiced there by banned editors. (Perhaps this WR factor is the unspoken reason that the cases were combined?) The long-running disputes in this case all seem to be polarized into WR-tolerant and WR-intolerant camps. (Struck; I am persuaded that WR is not the core issue. 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)) Is there a way to bridge the divide? Two ideas:
- If there are any editors that both camps regard as sufficiently neutral, knowledgeable, and fair, they can be commissioned as a long-term mediation team that adjudicates disputes and grievances between the camps without the drama of AN/I, RfC, or arbitration requests. All parties would need to pledge to abide by the judgments of that team or else be asked to leave the project.
- Alternatively, each of the involved parties would be required to select one person from the other camp (not necessarily one of the parties to this case) as the sanctioned "ambassador" to them who is free to voice concerns and offer criticism without being accused of harassment, trolling, or otherwise acting in bad faith. (If you will, think of a court jester who can be frank when others need to be circumspect.) Everyone else from the other camp would be required to keep their distance to avoid conflict. If a party and/or their ambassador refuse to work together in good faith, both would be given simultaneous involuntary blocks that increase over time.

Okay, so that's it. I concede my idiocy in advance. Ready, aim, ... alanyst ^/talk/ 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"Just stay away from each other" only works if the disputed actions do not result in harm to innocent third parties. Even if "WR-tolerant" admins are ordered not to undo admin actions by "WR-intolerant" admins, it doesn't change the underlying problem that the latter are undertaking inappropriate, or at least controversial, admin actions. This isn't just a dispute over WR. --B (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, but that's the purpose of the mediation team or ambassador, to keep an avenue open for raising such concerns without coming across as needlessly provocative or making a big public hoo-hah of things. If those avenues fail to resolve the problem, or if others in the community are also concerned, they can take it through the normal dispute resolution processes. It seems to me that the pervasive distrust has its epicenter at the WR issue, but undermines the normal DR processes even for disputes not directly related to WR, and a custom DR process is needed to inhibit the volatility of the parties' interactions. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  - This is the normal dispute resolution process and I have offered evidence of abuse of the administrative tools that has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia Review. Just saying stay away from each other would be like solving the problem of high gas prices by not talking to your mother in law. Admittedly, there are probably significant advantages, but it is unrelated to the problem of high gas prices. --B (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    - Ah, I didn't mean to suggest that the mediation/ambassador ideas were meant to address misuse of administrator privileges, and you're quite correct in saying that the "avoid each other" approach isn't appropriate for resolving that concern. My desysopping idea was aimed at that particular problem. Sorry if that was unclear. alanyst ^/talk/ 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  - I think this is an innovative idea. The parties would have to agree, and further, per B, the mediation team/ambassador/special master/whatever would have to have the power to undo actions made by the parties (if documented/supported/whatever... details need work to be sure but the undo is so that things that affect innocents get fixed) without the parties subsequently wheel warring about it. I would offer my services, but I'm not sure what camp I'm in. :) ++Lar: t/c 22:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Some very good ideas here. Maybe the best choice would be to create a committee consisting of some people allied in some way with each of the two "camps", and some people not allied with either of them, but all chosen for an ability to get along with others of diverse views, and be fair, reasonable, and open-minded. I get along with a number of people on both sides of the WP/WR fence, but there are also people on both sides of the fence that I don't get along with at all, so I might be too contentious to be a possibility for this committee myself (but I'd consider the position if nominated). User:Privatemusings might be a good choice for the committee due to his ability to get people on all sides together in a mostly cooperative way on his podcast series. User:GTBacchus is another possibility, somebody I haven't always agreed with but have always found to be fair-minded. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh god, it'll be like jury selection. We'll have to set up a pool of fifty editors, and each side can take it in turns to vote someone off until we have ten left. I suspect Lar, like myself, would get voted off post-haste for having a WR account. Neıl 龱 00:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just having a WR account does not make one anything in particular, except open minded enough to accept input about what needs fixing wherever it can be found, and patient enough to separate the wheat from a great deal of chaff. But I repeat myself ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be a fair, representative group, there ought to be some with WR accounts. What's needed is people willing to straddle both worlds, and be both cooperative with and critical of people on both sides when it's warranted. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly endorse Privatemusings in such a position, for one. Dr. e X treme 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Also, I agree both with the general proposal and also with User:B's comments that there are underlying issues completely unrelated to WR. dorftrottel (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll go farther than that. I feel there are those here using "WR", "stalk" and other codewords as red herrings. The general issue in this matter is how things are done here, not what is said elsewhere, and WR should not even be dignified as a side issue. Here's a clue: when you see someone say "nothing but trolls" or the like, it's a signal that they don't have any real arguments and are just using invective and opinion and code words to try to sway things. Ignore them, focus on the actual evidence and the patterns of behaviour it shows. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[De-indent.] Bringing up WR was probably not the best thing, but what I was trying to get at is that at the heart of this case, there are two main factions: one whose members are bold if not downright aggressive in their on-wiki interactions, and who brook little criticism; the other with members who are sensitive to the side effects of the actions of the first group, and are not shy about criticizing them when they believe them to have gone too far. My perception is that participation in the criticism at WR was the deal-breaker for assuming good faith, as far as JzG and Viridae are concerned, and the same goes for Cla68, SlimVirgin, and FeloniousMonk. If I'm wrong about that, it's not a big deal anyway; what's important is that AGF has broken down and the core issue seems to be how one faction takes criticism and how the other faction gives it, and what's legitimate criticism and what's harassment. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alanyst, you might be right that the two fractions issue is part of the problem, but it is not the whole problem, and as such, the issues would continue for groups that are not on WR, but still disagreeing with the above menitioned admins. This issues is already going on since far before WR became a hot potato on WP, and has driven many more people away who never even had heard of WR. For example, they started to accuse me of posting on WR, while I barely had heard of it, and it was a tactic to get someone shown in bad light, so that they could call you toxic, disruptive, trolling etc. This issues is only going to be resolved if the admins in question get desysoped, and leave the project. Previous arbcom's have bend backward to save some of these admins in the light of overwhelming evidence (case to complex, let give general amnesty; all admins are reminded; etc.), and I am sure that this arbcom will do the same. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Bent backward? Do the same? Let's not jump to that conclusion. I prefer to AGF about ArbCom... seriously. I remain hopeful that with the preponderance of evidence here now showing that there is a clear pattern of corrosive behaviour, ArbCom will not just give amnesty or remind folk in airy terms, but will actually deal with this longstanding and festering issue. As I believe I have said elsewhere, I have been contacted privately before by many different good, hardworking, well respected editors indicating that they refrain from trying to correct NPOV issues, refrain from policy discussion, refrain commenting about matters, even important ones, if certain parties to this case are involved, because they have seen how unpleasant getting into conflict with certain of the editors in this case has been for others, and further, that they refrain from commenting about THAT because of the fear of revenge. I'd go so far as to say it's an open secret among some. The vast majority of these editors are upstanding content contributors who have nothing to do with WR, or with recurring dramas of any sort. I won't name names because I was explicitly asked not to, but it's more than just a few. If ArbCom doesn't take notice of the pattern here I will be much surprised and dismayed. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  - Lar, thank you for your response. I did not send you an e-mail, but the items you mention above are exactly why I am not an editor anymore here at WP. Unfortunately, I do not have faith in the dispute resolution process at WP anymore after to many bad experiences, although some of the newer cases give me a bit more hope. If I still had hope, I would participate in it and be editing here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the MML case? In it, evidence has been provided that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Gary Weiss has been editing his own biography, and employed multiple sockpuppets to do it. But not only did the ArbCom ignore the COI issue, they also gave the Mantanmoreland account a slap on the wrist, compared to the massive evidence, let alone take any action whatsoever against those who prolonged the situation by aggressively and proactively protecting him.

I do have hope, but no faith. The AC is never going to act on these issues wholesale. Incidentally, this is all the more sad since most of the MML situation may have never occured or would at least have ended much sooner and quieter, if not for his protection by several of the parties in this case, who, most ironically, were also the ones who did more than anyone else to promote WR on Wikipedia. Finally, and after far too long, Mantanmoreland has been community banned after being caught sockpuppeting again. But will an ArbCom who refused to acknowledge the evidence in the other case now acknowledge the evidence against those who prolonged this violation of practically all Wikipedia rules? Will they acknowledge all the other evidence that demonstrates long-running and deep-seated problems surrounding the behaviour of these people? They will not, I'm afraid. The AC is going to turn this into another waste of time for those who are fighting for Wikipedia's integrity. They might as well ban Cla68 (nevermind that he contributed more featured content than they all combined did) and of course dismiss the notion that starting an RfAr was the most decisive proof, all we ever really needed, to see that those people are never going to reform their approach. They will keep up their all-out-character-assassinations, they will keep up their poisonous language, they will keep up canvassing, tag-team revert-warring, defending each other and harassing, baiting and, if at all possible, blocking anyone who criticises them. Because ArbCom is not going to do squat about it. They will ignore the evidence. I for one am not getting my hopes up (or rather, I'm bracing for yet another big disappointment). If the ArbCom shows balls and spine for the first time ever, I'll be happy, but it would be a great great surprise. dorftrottel (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I mostly agree with Dorf. I will be surprized to see a proposed decision with deadmin's in it, I would be surprized to see a proposed decision that does not chastise cla68 and viridea for trying to do the right thing. I would love to see real action taken against folks who have seemingly become almost NOTHING but the fuel to keep the 'board of outerdarkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth' going. Is the arbcom serious about the project as an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view? or are they more concerned with protection of users who have been a part of the community for a long time? The arbcom has a chance here to provide a real benefit to the encyclopedia and it's community of editors. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here. If there was consensus on the nature of the problem, then the community has all the powers it needs to resolve that problem. The Arbitration Committee is involved, usually, when there is considerable disagreement on the nature of the problem or the best solution. This is why we now have an arbitration case--several parties are seeing problems and blaming one another, so consensus on the best solution has not arisen (this applies to the JzG case as much as to the Cla68 case). The Committee has to look at what is happening, make some basic determinations on what's gone wrong, and propose whatever solutions its members feel are in the best interests of Wikipedia. We can't predict what the best solution for the problem will be because if we agreed on that then we would already have carried it out. That's why the Committee exists. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have strong opinions on the need for remedies when this began. After reading the evidence, now I do. Based on my observations of previous arbcom hearings, I don't expect that the remedies will match my view of the evidence. I absoultely agree that if it were totally clear cut the community might have been able to work it out. However, with editors only telling half the story (or less) when these issues are brought up at the vairous other places for resultion/input (rfc's, admin noticeboards, etc) and when those issues are followed by 'ban the wr trolls!' and 'I'm being harrassed by the evil off-site message board's stooges' and similar it is beyond the communities ability to deal with. I actually think a bit of prediction is useful, it helps folks prepare for what might be coming (both observers and committee members). I recall in the manatanmoreland hearing, folks on the committee being very surprized at the overwhelmingly negative response to the initial proposed decision. A bit of commentary on what the proposed might include could help focus on what seems important. Obviously, there is more to it. We don't see all the privately submitted stuff, of which there is likely more than we expect (with lar's comments on folks who shy away from confrontation with the parties). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you may be confusing an obstinate refusal to accept consensus with no consensus. The ArbCom's job is to deal with the former rather than the latter. dorftrottel (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll clarify: there is no consensus within the community on what you said in your comment at 1914 this evening you have "hope, but no faith" that the arbitration committee will agree with: that the actions of certain parties inappropriately "prolonged [a] violation of practically all Wikipedia rules", and that they acknowledge your claim, which is echoed by many other contributors to this arbitration case, that there is a core of editors who have engaged in "all-out-character assassinations...poisonous language...canvassing, tag-team revert-warring, defending each other and harassing, baiting and, if at all possible, blocking anyone who criticises them." I do not believe that there is consensus within the community to this effect. I will not press the issue. I don't know whether or not the arbitration committee will agree with you, but whatever the decision is I will accept it.

On your substantive point, the remit of the arbitration committee is to resolve primarily interpersonal disputes. There are procedures for dealing with individuals who obstinately refuse to accept consensus: in short, they quickly become history if they persist. There are claims in this case that involve rather more serious charges. You have stated them yourself. The community obviously doesn't agree because they're not clamoring for the banning of these editors and the removal of these sysop bits. The ball is in arbcom#s court. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I think you might find that the comments of this individual in a prior case request are interesting reading. I don't recall how that one came out, it was a while ago. But it shows that this matter has been around a while. Perhaps conventional solutions aren't necessarily always the only alternative. I note that ArbCom has lately been endorsing the notion that unconventional solutions are to be sought when all else fails. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't be coy about it. That was me. Disputes often arise from a perception that one party or another is defending a matter overzealously. I took the dispute to the arbitration committee. This is how we do things here. I didn't demand that the arbitration committee agree with either party, nor did I have a clear idea who was in the right. The case was rejected [128]. Please note my response of 11 September, and El C's response to that. Wikipedia:Assume good faith (misnamed AGF by those who mistakenly believe that letters mean as much as words) worked very well in this case. It's a long way from my expression of concern at a dispute between parties, all of whom I respected, to these extremely distressing and,. honestly, obviously false allegations based (really, let's be honest) Slim Virgin's absolutely correct behavior in dealing with WordBomb, a stupid and nasty paid troll. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In the case of SV, why do we excuse her other excesses because she was right in her excessive newbie biting of wordbomb? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Obviously false allegations" like that Mantanmoreland was engaging in abusive sockpuppetry? *Dan T.* (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, when you talk about assuming good faith and then make the final comment, it betrays the complete lack of substance in your position. If you are assuming bad faith on one side, please have the integrity to acknowledge that you're doing this and not rely on ridiculous appeals to principles that you don't support. Mackan79 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the era of anything-goes abuse of Judd Bagley is over. Maybe not. In any case I'd say in his defense that I prefer his puckish mischief to the preening, grandiose, self-pitying nonsense of that transparent fraud Mantanmoreland – the organized and wholly unjustified protection of whom is at the root of this case.--G-Dett (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it? Looking at the situations with SandyGeorgia or Tim Vickers and many other things, I daresay the Mantanmoreland saga was 'merely' the most blown-up and now-most obvious of all the bad things, but there's a lot more. At the base of this case is an underlying behavioral issue perhaps best summarised here and, humorously (which is the best approach most of the time), here. dorftrottel (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to everyone in this thread, I'm not sure we're going in a useful direction. I'd be interested in more analysis of my ideas or, if those don't make the grade, further suggestions of creative ways to cut the Gordian knot. I see it as a Gordian knot because I honestly don't think any of the parties deserves at this point to be banned, and if everyone's going to remain editing here, then some way has to be found to detoxify the atmosphere, and conventional sanctions seem unlikely to help. But reiterating our grievances seems a particularly poor way to do that too. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken (although it was fun while it lasted) I think you should turn these reflections into concrete remedies and see who supports or opposes them and why. Your point really is that conventional remedies either won't work for lack of teeth (ok, everyone, be nice... right. What block of any of the parties here on that basis would survive 30 minutes at AN/I?), or go too far and aren't likely to be adopted anyway (can you see ArbCom banning all parties? Desysopping all parties?... didn't think so), and something different is needed. So put it out there. Me, I'd limit the tandem reversion and limit the use of codeword memes, and make it enforceable in a non debateable (and thus non overturnable) way. But that's pretty obviously why I never stood for ArbCom, and likely never will. (although lately I've been wondering...) ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On reviewing recent comments above, I have little to add to my previous comments. Slim Virgin works in controversial areas but, taking into account the fact that she'll tend to gain enemies simply because she does so, overall I find her behavior acceptable. On the other hand, I find the very, very long-time persecution of Slim Virgin utterly distasteful both on the spurious grounds cited by those who engage in it or defend it (of which I gave one of the more obvious examples) and because of the manner in which the hounding has been conducted, whether on-site or off-site. I've no idea whether the committee is likely to see it my way, but since it's my considered opinion it would be dishonest to deny it. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a tiny bit weird to speak of her being prosecuted in an RfAr which ~~she started~~ a wikifriend of her's started? Or let me guess, that's justified self-defense, right? dorftrottel (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You have misread my comment. I do not refer to this arbitration case, which I expect to substantially vindicate SlimVirgin, but to the persecution of SlimVirgin, which has been substantial and longrunning and is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, by the appearance of legitimising that persecution. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The history's a bit tangled, what with two cases being merged and all, but I don't think Slim was the one who started either of the cases that turned into this one. FeloniousMonk started a case against Cla68, while Viridae started one against JzG (or was that vice versa?), and various others got added as parties too, including Slim, who was one of the first to insert comments which included urging that the ArbCom accept the case. So she's a supporter of bringing the case, but doesn't seem to be the originator of it. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, because it gets pretty hard to figure out who did what when just from looking at the case page. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad, struck and amended accordingly. dorftrottel (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think SlimVirgin or FeloniousMonk disagree on the question of whether there is a strong case against Cla68. Evidence has also been presented on FeloniousMonk's and SlimVirgin's behavior; whether that is germaine to the immediate case is a question that needs to be answered by the Committee (they decide the scope). Whether Cla68's conduct was acceptable in all of the circumstances pertaining is also a question that must be determined by the Committee. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a major difference between banning all parties and merely desysopping them. The most significant of the problems brought forward in the evidence arise from administrative actions, or from editing action backed by the explicit or implied threat of administrative actions. None of the work or contention of the parties carried out purely as editors is really so outrageous that it would justify banning. Nor have such actions in themselves really hurt our ability to retain editors. The administrative role, either by itself or combined with the editing--that's something else indeed. Desysopping them, and asking them to stand for re-confirmation (or possibly a requirement that they stand for re-confirmation, with the understanding they will lose the bit if they do not get it--the same effect, but worded less aggressively) should deal with the worst pat of the actual problem. The only difficulty, of course, is the foreseeable reconfirmation requests and the "discussion" they will evoke. But it should make the attitude of the general community quite apparent. I think that was Alanyst's original point. DGG (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you read my intent correctly. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, and while I can see how losing the sysop bit can be a bit of a blow to one's dignity, I think it could help the parties re-focus on the editing side of Wikipedia. I have some further thoughts on this that I will present as concrete proposals, as Lar has thoughtfully suggested I do. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin bits are incidental, thuggery is not. The outcome of this case shouldn't hinge on whether this or that person is to be desysopped, but over what we are to about the extreme and unacceptable attacks, on and off the wiki, on SlimVirgin. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is twofold. First, if SlimVirgin is being attacked, that does not give her a licence to do things that are not within our norms, especially things that are directed at upstanding contributors here rather than at her attackers. Second, if person X is being attacked by organization Y, the proper course of action is not to go after innocent bystander Z. Cla68 is an innocent bystander here, who just happens to be upstanding enough of a wikicitizen to be willing to bring things to the community's attention. If this case comes out as the only remedy being some sort of remedy against Cla68, we will have shot the messenger rather than dealt with the problem. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If indeed SlimVirgin has done anything unacceptable, that problem should be handled. Tu quoque is no defense. However, to describe Cla68 as an "innocent bystander" is to ignore his persistent promotion of attacks on Wikipedians by trolls. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You've asserted this, without proof, several times now. Do you plan to introduce something in evidence to show this, or just keep asserting it over and over in the hope that if you repeat it enough times it will stick? I've introduced evidence that shows that Cla68's JzG RfC was widely regarded as correct, which refutes a good part of your theorem right there. ++Lar: t/c 00:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony, it's enough. Please consider not posting to these pages anymore unless you have something useful to add, preferably backed up by diffs. dorftrottel (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove of enabling trolls.

I would think that that ends the need for this conversation. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Previous ArbCom discussion?

[edit] Oversighted SlimVirgin userspace page?

[edit] JzG is added as a party

[edit] More Oversighted SlimVirgin edits?

[edit] Request for FloNight

[edit] Deletion of SV's user talk page history

[edit] Undo the combination of two cases

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Motion to close without prejudice

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Template

[edit] Questions to the parties

[edit] Question from FT2

[edit] Question from Merzul about Off-Wiki Sites

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposals by User:Ncmvocalist

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit] Administrators

[edit] Editorial process

[edit] Use of administrative tools in a dispute

[edit] Decorum

[edit] Threats

[edit] Administrators expected to lead by example

[edit] Know yourself

[edit] MeatBall:DefendEachOther

[edit] Conduct outside Wikipedia

[edit] Guilt by association

[edit] Compliance

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Previous ArbCom rulings involving FeloniousMonk

[edit] FeloniousMonk

[edit] Previous ArbCom rulings involving SlimVirgin

[edit] SlimVirgin

[edit] JzG

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] FeloniousMonk desysopped

[edit] FeloniousMonk placed on civility parole

[edit] SlimVirgin desysopped

[edit] SlimVirgin placed on civility parole

[edit] JzG desysopped

[edit] JzG placed on civility parole

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

[edit] Template

[edit] Proposals by User:Jossi

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Wikipedia is a community-generated encyclopedia

[edit] Proposals by IP:80.65.250.135

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Communications outside of Wikipedia

[edit] Proposal by User:Dragon695

[edit] Proposed principle

[edit] Guilt by association

[edit] Proposals by User:William M. Connolley

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Not a bureaucracy

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] JzG commended

[edit] SlimVirgin commended

[edit] FeloniousMonk commended

[edit] Proposals by User:SchmuckyTheCat

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Spirit of the rules

[edit] Edit warring is harmful

[edit] Don't meatpuppet, don't canvas

[edit] Take time off to cool off

[edit] When topic bans are a good idea

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Rules lawyering

[edit] Group edit warring