Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Hersfold (talk | contribs)
Undid revision 349908783 by Trusilver (talk) don't push it
Line 910: Line 910:


''(There being 16 arbitrators, one of whom is inactive, the majority is 8) ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small></font> 21:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)'' <small>Updated by [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC), and again by [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)</small>
''(There being 16 arbitrators, one of whom is inactive, the majority is 8) ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small></font> 21:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)'' <small>Updated by [[User:Hersfold|'''''<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers</em><em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold</em>''''']] <sup>([[User:Hersfold/t|t]]/[[User:Hersfold/a|a]]/[[Special:Contributions/Hersfold|c]])</sup> 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC), and again by [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)</small>

'''Enacted''' ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small></font> 03:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


=====Arbitrator voting and discussion=====
=====Arbitrator voting and discussion=====
Line 985: Line 987:


Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.
Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

'''Enacted''' ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small></font> 03:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


=====Arbitrator voting and discussion=====
=====Arbitrator voting and discussion=====

Revision as of 03:57, 15 March 2010

Requests for arbitration


A Nobody

Initiated by Flatscan (talk) at 05:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Flatscan

A Nobody has persisted in making copying edits that introduce attribution dependencies and interfere with the deletion process. Considering that AN continued with the similar merging during active AfDs until both the WT:AFD discussion and his RfC, Arbitration appears to be the only remaining venue.

Recent activity:

If this case's scope is confined to the copying issue, I would be satisfied by a motion that restricts A Nobody from any copying. While I have only tried to resolve the copying issue, I agree that it is merely one of a number of problematic behaviors and that a full case may be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Party 2}

Comment by Fran Rogers

For well over a year now, A Nobody (formerly "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles") has been evading any and all attempts to discuss or scrutinize his behavior or start the dispute resolution process, by claiming convenient reasons to disappear as soon as an AN/I discussion or RfC on his behavior is attempted. For example:

A Nobody has consistently gone out of his way to make dispute resolution with him impossible. I urge the Committee to accept this case. Fran Rogers 07:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, after I posted this comment A Nobody posted a long "farewell" message in his userspace confirming that he does have a sick dog, had diverticulitis, etc.; taking potshots at myself and some other users; and also claiming that stalkers trashed his car (whether this was supposed to be connected to the time he vanished claiming real-world harassment and returned with a sockpuppet, I don't know.) Since he directly criticized me in the message, I felt compelled to respond:
Missing the point

Whether you're actually sick, have a sick dog, are busy in real life, isn't the issue: it's that you continuously cite real-world issues to tug at the community's heartstrings and avoid scrutiny. Since you still have the time to participate in Wikipedia's bureaucratic morass, be involved at AfD, and snipe at other users who you consider to have wronged you, clearly you should also have time to respond to criticism and dispute resolution requests. Yet every time you've taken an absence due to real-world concerns right after a discussion come up - even if, by sheer coincidence, you honestly couldn't participate in Wikipedia when they came up - you've consistently made no effort to address those concerns or participate in those discussions upon your return. The community can be very empathetic to real-world concerns, but to abuse that empathy on multiple occasions to escape scrutiny is wholly inappropriate.

On a personal level I've also had quite enough of the sniping you've been taking at me recently, both on this page and when you tried to request I be desysopped without notifying me. Yes, as I'd locked myself out of my account at the time, when I was concerned that you were claiming false credentials, I had to do so as an IP address. And I thought a user whose activities closely paralleled your sockpuppet Elisabeth Rogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was you, too. I was mistaken in both instances. That doesn't mean you can just cite those as reasons I'm a Bad Person who should be ignored - and the same is true for the other editors you've kept lists of "bad" acts for and taken potshots at, as detailed in the RfC you ignored and the new request for arbitration.

If you would just accept scrutiny and criticism of your actions instead of avoiding discussion and disappearing at convenient times, we could all get back to that goal of building an encyclopedia. Fran Rogers 18:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, instead of responding to my message, he requested the talk page be deleted altogether. Fran Rogers 19:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dream Focus

  • The first complaint is that he copied all the information from the Caprica characters to an article list all of them, at the same time at least one of them were up for delete, with a high probability others would soon follow, that usually how these things work out. You can't copy the information over after the AFD is over, if something is deleted! The Zoe AFD ended in Keep. If an article ended in Keep, there would be no reason to put a redirect there, obviously, so that complaint seems rather ridiculous to me. Note that the AFD ended at 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC) and his action for starting at 16:37, 21 February 2010. Did he noticed it had been closed before copying the information over with all the rest? Was this discussed anywhere at all before bringing it here? Could've easily been a simple mistake. I see no rule violation here.
7 March 2010: Shortly after commenting at WP:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, AN adds reception to Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess, then copies it to Big Boss (C.O.P.S.) (contribs). I clarify that the content was all contributed by A Nobody.
  • The complaint is that he found something to put in a reference section of a character, and since it mentioned two characters in it, copied it over to the article of the other character mentioned as well. Once again, what is the complaint here?
  • In response to the next item, about Tron. He removed a prod, which is every editor's right to do, and no one else trying to delete the article since then. He then copied a small bit from that to the film article, thinking the characters in the film would do well to have that information mentioned along with them. Once again, is there any valid complaint here?
  • I didn't bother looking at the rest. I don't see any reason why the arbitrators should waste their time with this case. And many people don't bother reading the constant messages posted by deletionists on their talk pages. After awhile, the same familiar names keep showing up, and you just start to ignore them. Dream Focus 09:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Iridescent

While I generally support what A Nobody is doing – I strongly believe that a lot of Wikipedia's problems are caused by the project being overwhelmed by short poor-quality unexpandable and unwatched stubs, and it's far more useful both for readers and editors to have one bulleted list, instead of either 20 free-standing stubs or deletion altogether – I'd nonetheless ask Arbcom to accept this. The issues of what is and isn't appropriate action when it comes to merging before, during and after AFD is a long-running argument (I was caught up in an identical incident three years ago, and nothing seems to have changed). Given Arbcom's metamorphosis into the Wikipedia Supreme Court, this is exactly the sort of thing you should be issuing rulings on rather than leaving to "the community" to sort out when it's clear that the community is never going to come to agreement. We also need to sort out what is and isn't appropriate attribution when moving content from separate articles into a parent article. – iridescent 09:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Reyk

I will confirm Fran Rogers's summary of A Nobody as an editor who dodges and refuses to acknowledge all criticism of his behaviour. Much of which is deeply problematic, as a careful view of the RfC he's pretending doesn't exist will show. His response to the concerns of half a dozen editors (that he is performing merges, not for any naviational or content reasons, but just to create attribution dependencies in order to undermine AfD) has been to make it magically disappear in a ham-fisted "archive" scheme, and to characterize editors who question his actions as disruptive trolls that he can ignore. I know it is allowed for editors to remove comments from their talk page, but I feel the unwillingness to address legitimate concerns speaks volumes- as does the frankly deceitful way it was done.

Then there's the repeated demands to closing admins to overturn consensus at AfD.

Also worrying is the instence on using ANI and WQA as vehicles of retribution:

  • User:Dwanyewest makes a fair few good-faith AfD nominations and gets hauled to ANI.
  • Same user then accused of being a sock puppeteer (and the only user name mentioned in the SPI that A Nobody did not notify of the case).
  • User:Lar suggests very strongly that A Nobody address his own RfC before criticizing others- A Nobody immediately goes running to ANI about things Lar had done on his talk page weeks earlier and which had nothing to do with A Nobody.
  • User:Pablo X questions A Nobody's bizarre merging and redirecting- A Nobody goes running to WQA with some contrived flim-flam about swear words.

A Nobody's RfC shows a history of deceitful and problematic behaviour for the whole time he has been here. He hasn't acknowledged any of the community's concerns and has stated quite unequivocally that he has no intention to. The diffs I and others have shown here demonstrate that the same poor behaviour is continuing apace. He won't listen to people and won't change his disruptive actions on his own, so it's high time he was pulled into line. Reyk YO! 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Deor

I urge the arbitrators to take this case to examine, not just the limited issue raised by Flatscan in his request, but all the long-term disruptive behavior outlined in the opening summary of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody. As Flatscan and Reyk have shown above (and as other instances that could be cited show as well), this behavior has continued to the present. A Nobody now claims to have retired, so the committee may be tempted to reject this RfAr as moot. I do not think he has retired—though he may have chosen to retire this particular account—and I think the time has come for an examination of his activities by the committee, as no other attempts at resolution have had any effect. Deor (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Cenarium

I urge arbitrators to decline the case, for now at least. From what I see, there's not enough recent activity from A Nobody which is considered problematic, and the extent of the problem is not clear at all. Thus I would suggest users to discuss the specific issues raised here, about the appropriateness of some types of merges/copyings, on the content noticeboard, for example. This is up to the community to determine the propriety or impropriety of those, not to ArbCom. When this is cleared up, if actions determined to be problematic then occur, ArbCom would be able to consider them - though I hope this won't come to that. Furthermore, I'm afraid such a case would become political, since there's not enough recent behavioural issues to support it, and the deletionism vs inclusionism debate would become a focal point, matter with which ArbCom should not to interfere. Cenarium (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stifle

I will offer evidence if the case is accepted. I have had many frustrating interactions with A Nobody, whose contributions seem focused on circumventing consensus and policy when it suits him but insisting on them when they are on his side, wikilawyering, and presenting faits accomplis to frustrate editors from cleaning up after him. He is, as mentioned above, well-known for stonewalling and vanishing when called on his behaviour (he made no contribution whatsoever to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Nobody) and I would not believe his retirement for one second — he will be back in a month or two, either on his current account or through a sock. I urge acceptance. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Waiting for a comment from A Nobody (which it seems may be some time in coming), but I do have a question. To Flatscan, nothing in the cases you mention in your statement was deleted, and it appears as though A Nobody was diligent about linking to the source page titles in his edits, as is required when doing "smerges". So what exactly is the problem? I do see the lack of communication as an issue; while we cannot confirm medical issues and must respect user's privacy in this regard, the timing of those instances is admittedly odd. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN in Judaism articles

Initiated by Newman Luke (talk) at 06:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Newman Luke (filing party)

A small group of Orthodox Jewish editors, mainly IZAK, Debresser, and Avraham, are acting as a tag team to try to claim ownership of articles about Judaism, particularly on the topic of marriage.

Specifically they refuse to allow any major edits. Methods they use include blanket reversion, and repeatedly blanking new articles rather than using the AfD process where they'd have to submit to the will of the community at large. Avraham has even tried to circumvent deletion policy by moving an article to a new title, and then immediately replacing the entire content with something suited to the new title. On the rare occasion that AfD has been used, frivolous and inappropriate reasons have been advanced for deletion, such as that an article doesn't use the sources Avraham would prefer.

IZAK & co. invent fictional claims of a prior consensus about content, when no such consensus (or even discussion) is evident on the article talk pages. They refuse to point out specific content/edits which they regard as problematic, while other uninolved parties have remarked that the edits in question were worthwhile (in contradiction to the stance of IZAK, Debresser, etc.).

They explicitly claim that they can ignore WP:OWN, a policy, and suggest that WP:BRD, a mere essay, trumps it, insisting that any major change gets their approval first.

Some of the group try to push primary sources over secondary ones, and regard their particular view of Judaism's stance on things as the only view which should be presented in articles as the view of Judaism. This is even true when several specific rabbis in their own denomination hold a differing view. Avraham has even on occasion attempted to exlude sources on the grounds of whether he personally views them as 'Jewish'.

In addition, as part of their campaign, they generally fail to use article talk pages to raise any article issues, prefferring to stoke tension by posting generalistic complaints to central noticeboards (such as AN/I), repeatedly demanding that specific people are prevented from editing Judaism articles on the grounds that they are not experts in the topic, encouraging others to stalk those individuals, posting malicious misrepresentation and slander to user talk pages, as well as general aggressive messages, encouraging other editors to stalk a user's edits, and canvassing.

Selected remarks by third parties about my edits, and those of IZAK and Debresser

In relation to my edits, other users say:

Conversely, in relation to IZAK and Debresser, other users say:

There have also been past cases against IZAK and Debresser:

Detailed evidence of problematic behaviour
  1. Biased editing - [24] (see Name of God in Judaism for explanation of the religious bias behind that edit)
  2. original research
    1. asserting that their view is the pure form, from which all others are deviations
      1. claiming that the religious texts they regards as authoritive are the ones that all significant forms of the religion regard as authoritative, no exceptions ("if writing an article about any topic in the Tanakh or in the Talmud or in Halacha, the first and foremost priority is ......following the natural main line of Jewish scholarship as expressed in and by the Tanakh+Mishnah+Talmud+Rishonim+Acharonim+Shulkhan Arukh")
      2. insisting that their viewpoint is the only valid one ("In Judaism there is no other interpretation that has been accepted in the last 2000 or so years, than the one I use.")
      3. claiming that 100% of an entire religion holds a particular stance - theirs - regardless of whether even 1 million rabbis in his own denomination don't ("even if you line up a million Orthodox ...rabbis ....it does not mean that objectively JUDAISM as a religion based on the Torah allows it. ....it is a no-brainer that Judaism, as based on the Torah/Hebrew Bible is 100% opposed ....derived from two simple verses....It's an open and shut case. " - item 3 there)
      4. that sources expressing a case that they disagree with must be written by people whose sole aim is to discredit a religious text ("essays written by some latter-day writers whose sole aim in life is to discredit the Bible" - item 8 there) - despite the fact that the writers in question follow the religion associated with said text
    2. trying to push primary sources over secondary sources
      1. claiming that an early primary source is more appropriate and authoritative for later tradition, than a later secondary source ([25])
      2. claiming that it is inappropriate to replace 'traditional sources' (aka primary sources) with secondary sources ([26])
      3. that one should produce a synthesis of a series of primary sources, instead of what later secondary sources say ("....primary sources and secondary sources.... the latter do not trump or over-rule the former in terms of presentation and priorities....the first and foremost priority is to express and state what that primary source states...")
      4. claiming that their view of a primary source on a specific subject is undeniably the stance of an entire religion, and that any other viewpoint in that religion, even in their own denomination (such as discussed here under item 1), doesn't count ("....the source book of Judaism, specifically forbids it in Leviticus...., not to mention the moral lessons and implications of ...Genesis....Those are bedrocks ....To repeat, .... forbidden by .... Judaism...according to Leviticus .... and ... the events that followed Genesis...., condemned and banned in Torah Judaism in the objective sense of what those religions hold..." - items 1 and 6 there; [27] - item 1 there)
      5. Claims that a comparatively modern Encyclopedia shouldn't be trusted, but ancient primary sources should.("They are fundamentally secular academics and they do not write from within the 3,500 year old heritage....Thus, their views cannot be accepted carte blanche nor can they be the lone standards by which Judaic subjects on Wikipedia are reported and judged. ... without seeking greater balance from the classical religious commentators and sources. " - item 1 there)
  3. Desire to give undue weight to 'traditional' Orthodox Rabbinic Judaism: [28]
    1. Desire to suppress Karaite viewpoints ("Karaism is overly present in Judaism articles. It definitely has no place in the lede of any general Judaism article."). Karaite Judaism is a major division of modern Judaism - the other being Rabbinic Judaism
    2. Desire to heavily suppress academic viewpoints ("In an article about Judaism biblical critic has no place, as it is a field of study, not part of a religion or any system of ethical values", "One is a matter of faith, the other of academic study. ....They study different things, addressing different questions. Therefore they are incompatible, and as such should be treated in separate articles.")
      1. claiming that citing scholarly references constitutes making things up ("you are making things up....because you can cite ten papers written by ....scholars" - in item 5 there)
    3. claiming that a secondary source's reference to an early first millenium text cannot be used for discussing 1st century Judea whatsoever, because that latter text isn't what they class as 'Jewish' ([29])
    4. Intolerance for what they call an unjewish approach to editing ("his unjewish approach makes seeking consensus with him very difficult")
  4. Trying to circumvent deletion policy
    1. Claiming that articles should be deleted simply because they think that there are better sources than the ones used there at present ([30])
    2. canvassing
      1. wanton disregard for Wikipedia:Canvassing policy ("And what is the problem with that? Isn't that what election campains are about, for example?")
      2. agitating for meatpuppets to help him reach a particular AfD outcome ("See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/....., more POV-pushing ...depicting Judaism in negative lights")
    3. Moving an article [31] and then wiping the content and replacing it with something else appropriate to the new title [32]
    4. Blanking pages they dislike ([33][34][35][36][37][38])
      1. even their talk pages ([39] [40][41][42][43])
  5. Blanket reverting
    1. reverting based on religious prejudice - claiming, for example, that because they don't regard Herod's daughter as 'classically' Jewish, she doesn't count as a Jew ([44])
    2. Blanket reverting multiple edits during an ongoing major edit, while ignoring 3RR ([45][46][47][48][49][50])
      1. Refusing to discuss such reversions (see edit summary of [51])
      2. Blanking articles while refusing to discuss it on talk pages ([52]) - corresponding talk page still awaiting a response from november ([53])
  6. Claiming ownership
    1. claiming that Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy doesn't apply ("I am thoroughly familiar with that one...Special cases take precedence over the general rules.")
    2. Claiming that certain editors should not edit articles because in their view they are not 'experts' ("you should not be there, because you do not know the subject at hand.")
      1. Insulting such editors ("in view of your clearly proven ignorance about the subject of kashrus, I think you should really stop editing the Judaism article.", "I made a comment of more personal nature on your talkpage, ....And I really meant it. ")
    3. Claiming that Jewishness should be a criterion in whether someone should be able to edit an article ("Part of the issue may be the ignorance of Newman Luke about the history, development, and textual sources that relate to Jewish religious law; something that someone Jewish, and especially people who have spent decades studying said law, would know more about")
    4. Complaining about edits on the basis that they deviate from their viewpoint ([54])
    5. Claiming, in edit summaries, that substantive edits by established editors are 'vandalism' ([55])
    6. Acknowledging that they did not raise concerns about any specific edit ("I didn't raise any specific edit")
  7. gross and wanton failure to assume good faith
    1. claiming that a draft RfC, despite its obscure/hidden location, was an attack page, and that the obscurity of its location was somehow part of the attack ([56])
    2. claiming that the sole purpose of an article about a Jewish Synod was to commit some kind of Christian Crusade related libel against Judaism ("it may well be that the sole purpose this article was posted ....is because it contians a Takkana that was supposedly stated at the height of the murderous Christian Crusades ....he may twist it around and then falsely allege that aha, you see, Jews were showing bad faith to Christians with no word of the historical context and climate of fear and danger....") - it was actually created due to a connection to the return of dowries by a widower
    3. Arguing that an Encyclopedia having a certain writing style is equal to it pushing a specific POV ([57] - item 1 there)
    4. claiming that rejecting the use of primary sources demonstrates that an editor must have an agenda ("If you you are so dead set against .... the primary source book and primary document for Judaism, then you have an agenda and nothing will make you happy, sadly.")
  8. personal attacks and incivility
    1. making general claims of original research without backing it up with a single diff or referring to specific content, nor first raising this on article/user talk pages ([58])
    2. accusing editors of inventing topics by running a search on google ("your constant provocations by choosing to 'unearth' topics often in violation of WP:NOR, just based on a quick Googling into nowhere")
    3. describing an editor's edits in extremely uncivil terms
      1. as perniciousness, sheer arrogance, and surly vitriol ("The perniciousness and sheer arrogance of this statement is mind-boggling ....It seems you are now very comfortable hurling needles insults and surly vitriol..." - in items 10 there)
      2. as disruption, and almost nothing good ([59])
    4. Campaigning against certain editors, simply because they dislikes the edits ("Perhaps somebody can gice this guy a kick, and kick him off Wikipedia?")
    5. using extremely hostile and POV language ([60]) - as perceived by one of the targets of the comment ("please refrain from using POV language as you did before, because that does not serve any cause. ")
    6. spontaneous malice ([61])
    7. Making grossly distorted and maliciously false claims, whose sole aim seems to be to poison the well:
      1. claiming that an editor presumably regards an offensive and perjorative label applies a particular group ("whom presumably you regard as Fundamentalists -- a very offensive and pejorative term. " - 3rd paragraph, near beginning)
      2. claiming that an editor had said that a specific religious group was scientifically discredited ([62] - numbered item 1)
      3. accusing editors of failing to obey a specific set of guidelines when that is exactly what they are doing ([63] - item 2 there)
      4. claiming that an editor desires to insert negative articles about a religious group ("the way of confrontation, even if by creeping insertion of negative articles about Judaism, never wins on Wikipedia" - 3rd paragraph, near end)
    8. somewhat malicious slander against an entire Jewish denomination - Reform - claiming that it isn't definitive Judaism, and claiming that their religious stance is based on pulling rabbits out of hats, watch[ing] the latest social trends, and that it is only a de facto civil religion, and lacks anything spiritual ("To justify that is a perversion of Judaism according to all streams of Orthodoxy. Of course, the Reform are free to keep on pulling rabbits out of hats ....they just watch the latest social trends and that is their de facto civil "religion" often minus a God or anything spiritual. That is their choice, but it is not and has never been definitive Judaism either...." - in item 4 there)
    9. Asking a user what their race is, as if that somehow alters the value of their edits ("Are you Arab, for example? ")
  9. Forum shopping - posting complaints to project pages rather than first using article talk pages or user talk pages ([64])
  10. stalking ([65]) - the user-space pages he mentions weren't linked from anywhere, so the only way he'd have found them would be by pouring over the details of my edit history
    1. Encouraging stalking ([66][67][68])
Policies I think are involved
  1. Wikipedia:No original research (especially the section on use of primary sources)
  2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (especially the sections on undue weight, and on religion)
  3. Wikipedia:Deletion policy
  4. Wikipedia:Canvassing (especially the section on votestacking and forum shopping)
  5. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
  6. Wikipedia:Edit warring (especially the section about the 3 revert rule)
  7. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  8. Wikipedia:Civility (especially the line referring to accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence)
  9. Wikipedia:Harassment (especially the section on wikihounding)

Newman Luke (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IZAK

  1. At this point in time, being two weeks prior to Passover (Passover this year is from March 30th to April 6th 2010), Judaic editors will not have time to enter into lengthy discussions, and it is ridiculous to concoct half-baked theories about a "Passover Plot" on Wikipedia by anyone at this time on the Jewish calendar.
  2. But it is incomprehensible, and a sheer flouting of Wikipedia's sense of orderliness, that User Newman Luke (talk · contribs) who is HIMSELF the subject of a still open RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke, being heavily censured there for his violations of various rules over an extended period of time certified by many users, should resort to such an outrageous request here at this time rather than dealing with the requests from multiple users for him to cooperate there, while
  3. Newman Luke has just been handed another serious setback when he attempted to post 3 counter RfCs against Users Avraham; Debresser; IZAK at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Avraham; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debresser; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK3 that were neither endorsed nor accepted by anyone and hence deleted after 48 hours and he had in fact posted them prior for a week longer at User:Newman Luke/AV; User:Newman Luke/dDb; User:Newman Luke/Zq subsequently also deleted, that in itself should mean that he has no grounds to request the ArbCom to take up the battle for him instead against the three users he is so determined to wage battle against.
  4. Personally, a careful perusal of whatever Newman Luke has said about me, is taken from TALK pages where I have repeatedly and quite clearly tried to engage him in serious and respectful dialogue to reach some common ground, but alas it has been to no avail because he just takes words meant in the full spirit WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and twists them around and throws them back at me because of his own WP:POV and because he dislikes what he assumes to be the "religious beliefs and views" of other users, a violation of WP:LIKE.
  5. All past ArbCom cases filed against me in the past over my long career on Wikipedia, now over seven years, have been fully resolved years ago and have no bearing on my relationship with Newman Luke.
  6. It is ridiculous that Newman Luke expects anyone to go about treating original Biblical sources in the Hebrew Bible, that are easily and legitimately classed as WP:VERIFY, the keys and premises of both Christianity and Judaism, as being "insufficient" in Judaism-related (or for that matter Christianity-related) articles, as if he is now going to tell the world what Judaism is or is not and expect other learned editors to take that seriously. All Judaism articles are open and contain content from various streams of Judaism and I have never interfered with that, nor have I ever been accused of doing so by any editor in any ARTICLES whatsoever.
  7. Newman Luke is sure that he can dismantle the Bible itself by quoting a latter writer, while anyone who wishes to describe and explain how that is not possible according to both classical Judaism and Christianity is deserving of Newman Luke's censure and obvious ire as if he were the final "decisor" of what Judaism is or is not. This is all very silly and the height of absurdity. He expects people to "renounce" their personal beliefs (that he cannot know) while he clings and trumpets his beliefs and what he deems should be the "standards" that everyone must "adhere" to.
  8. What Newman Luke claims and expects of Judaism articles is not imposed on any other religious topics or its serious editors over the years dealing with other religions on Wikipedia. Articles about the Christian New Testament deal with it as a primary holy document for all Christians, and the New Testament is not there only to be attacked and disputed by latter day critics. There are ways and articles to accomplish that, but not the way that Newman Luke has been going about it. Wikipedia is not a religious seminary, it is an encyclopedia that seeks to accurately document all schools of thought and what the religions themselves have had to say for millennia and not what Newman Luke would impose on them himself in violation of WP:NOR and WP:NEO.
  9. Likewise, articles about Islam deal with the Koran as a primary holy document first and foremost for that religion and no one in their right mind would claim that on Wikipedia, that the New Testament or the Koran should not be cited as primary sources (in the HISTORICAL and RELIGIOUS senses) for describing and explaining how those religions function and what they have taught in and of themselves for thousands of years. Yet Newman Luke always wishes to overturn that principle when he enters in discussions or editorial sprees to overturn articles important to Judaism.
  10. Newman Luke is confusing sound Wikipedia policies that require verification for topics that have no or little known reliable basis per WP:RS or have yet to be written up, with the standard practices of HISTORY and RELIGION where there is a clear differentiation and preference given to primary sources/documents that are known and established almost universally, and are 100% valid for WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY purposes, in relation to secondary sources/documents of which there can be many varying and various ones, not all being the same WP:RS, that do not carry the same weight as primary sources in the historical, and this case, theological sense, in keeping within the parameters of sound and acceptable historiography in academia, standard theology, and reliable objective scientific research. In the case of Judaism, no rational person would argue that the Hebrew Bible does "not" qualify for WP:VERIFY or that it "cannot" be used as a primary source in the historical and religious sense for describing and explaining how Judaism derives, implements and practices its famous 613 commandments from the Torah, or how as the Old Testament it is the key to the beliefs and observances of Christianity, for that matter.
  11. I and other users have repeatedly urged Newman Luke to pursue the path of peace and WP:CONSENSUS and not the path of WP:WAR because peace is better than WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, yet he ignores that, always twists my words, and escalates the battles and takes the wars to the next level, as he is doing now, yet again, and he should be stopped.
  12. Thus, this case should be dismissed and Newman Luke should be censured for his constant violations of WP:WAR; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND; WP:CONSENSUS; WP:AGF; WP:CIVIL; WP:NPA and most importantly WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT. (P.S. I long ago advised Newman Luke to get to know WP:SPIDERMAN!) Thank you, IZAK (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

  1. The conclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke is that Newman Luke is a disruptive editor.
  2. Three Requests for comment opened by him against the same editors he is filing against now, were not endorsed, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Newman_Luke#Newman_Luke.27s_RfCs_against_other_users_in_response_to_this_RfC_against_him.
  3. I propose to let the Rfc against Newman Luke reach its conclusion. Proposals are currently under way at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Newman Luke.
  4. In light of this I'd respectfuly urge the arbitors not to accept this case for arbitration. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Avraham

This user is the subject of an ongoing RfC in which he has been found to be both disruptive and unable to edit collegially and with other wikipedia participants. I will save the arbitrators and readers the space and direct them to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Newman Luke. Prior to this, Newman Luke had been approached multiple times and asked to use talk pages and discuss his edits (which were both disruptive and incorrect) and refused. He was brought up on ANI multiple times as well, to no avail. During the RfC on him he tried to 1) file three separate RfCs on editors party to the RfC about him 2) tried to use RfMed as an end around despite RfMed being specifically about content and this being a behaviioral issue. He has canvassed for his RfCs (please check his history, it is obvious) and he has forum shopped. The initial desired outcome of the RfC was to require Newman Luke to discuss all edits prior, but his continued campaign to ignore overwhelming consensus about his editing issues lead me to regretfully suggest only a full topic ban on Newman Luke on all Judaica-related topics will protect the integrity of the project as he has shown complete disregard for wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and fellow editors in this area. Ironically, the only person demonstrating WP:OWNership issues here is Newman Luke himself. I have suggested a revised outcome for the RfC that applies said topic ban. -- Avi (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Uninvolved User 1

Statement by Uninvolved User 2

Clerk notes

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

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

  • Comment - the detailed evidence isn't needed at this stage - that sort of thing is/was more appropriate to be laid out at an RfC or during a case if accepted. At the moment, it provides a lot for arbitrators to read and for the other parties to the request to respond to. Could you reduce the detailed evidence to just a few diffs? As far as dispute resolution goes, could you give details of how many other people (and who) have tried to resolve this dispute with the three people listed here, other than you? I see lots of attempts at dispute resolution, but not much indication of content RFCs to try and resolve the content disputes. Also awaiting statements from the other named parties to this dispute, and noting here that the current name would not be suitable as the name of a case (if accepted). Carcharoth (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline - per my colleagues, following the submission of the further statements I was waiting for. I'm not prepared to go as far as some of my colleagues and judge the evidence being discussed here (i.e. a decline should not be construed as saying who is at fault here). But clearly, with an RfC still in progress, that process needs to be allowed to finish. Furthermore, Newman Luke did link to some diffs from the RfC filed against him, but should have been more explicit in saying that such an RfC existed. Filing an arbitration request while that RfC was still open, and not stating that he was the subject of a current RfC, is not a good sign. As for my question about whether other people have tried to resolve this dispute with the three people listed here, the lack of endorsement for the RfCs that Newman Luke filed seems to answer that question. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Carch in all respects. Also, didn't we very recently have an arbitration case in which IZAK and Debresser were at each other's throats? And now they're tag-teaming? Anything you could say to resolve that apparent paradox would be welcome. Steve Smith (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline - While I don't think it's fair to say unequivocally that the RFC has found that the filer is a disruptive editor, I don't see much here to warrant our attention. Steve Smith (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - This looks as though it could be - and in fact is - being handled through other channels. The evidence being presented by Newman appears questionable (per Steve's comments) and seems to have been rejected by other editors at the current RfC. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: Newman Luke's evidence is not, to put it mildly, persuasive and, as Steve remarks, parts are implausible. It also seems the community has this in hand so there is no need for us to become involved.  Roger Davies talk 07:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: Community can and is handling this. SirFozzie (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, leave it to the community to settle this matter. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline: per above. RlevseTalk 15:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday

You have apparently accidentally removed the template and all instructions for setting up an arbitration case from the arbitration pages, so forgive me if this isn't perfect. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 22:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • First invitation to initiate conduct RfC.[73]
  • Second invitation to initiate conduct RfC.[74]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

I left Wikipedia over harassment by Durova. Durova had been continually hounding me over tiny issues for months; the final straw being when I politely pointed out a bizarre decision by her in a set nomination, here, she cursed me out for 15 minutes on Skype. See http://wikidwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-to-avoid-wikipedia.html

Durova is in the habit of maliciously false claims in order to attack me. In this very case, she claims she had permission to post e-mails. She did not. She had permission to republish the log in which she falsely claims I boasted about gaming the system, which now admits does not exist. ("For two days I've searched for a log where he made that disclosure. It may have happened in voice so there isn't any log [...]") She instead falsely claimed permission to post material in which I vented about the Matthew Hoffman case.


This is not the first time she has falsely claimed permission. I have asked a user involved with the oversighting of it to comment on an incident on Commons in which health details - revealed here under a pseudonym - were quoted there attached to my own name by her, and she falsely claimed the right to reveal them on the basis that I had mentioned them at another project. [These posts have been oversighted; they are discussed here; and I have asked the person who got them oversighted to comment here.]

Going back to her claims about me gaming the system: Since the log doesn't exist, one must ask then how she could get information from a former Committee member about it "on the basis of [Shoemaker's self-disclosure"]. If she doesn't have the log, how could she prove self-disclosure? Does the committee freely reveal information about cases to uninvolved parties?

Furthermore, when challenged to substantiate her claims, which also included a false claim I edited the log I posted, she simply began repeatedly asking for the thread to be closed.

She has shown herself willing to lie and mislead both administrators and arbitrators in order to attack me, even on this case page. Evidently, if I want to quote something, she calls in an oversighter, removing quotes and even links to quotes, (neither of which is, in fact, permitted under WP:OVERSIGHT), and then uses it to attack me [75]. However, If she wants to quote things, she merely has to falsely claim I gave permission.

Rlevse's oversights of the link above, which substantially inflamed the situation, are being considered by the oversight list. Brief consideration may be appropriate here.

As for the proposal: Well, it's typical Arbcom dodging of the issues. But I can live with it, since it's better than having Arbcom poke fun of me for being harassed in their decline votes, or suggesting that I just need an apology to go back to being her scapegoat.

That said, I will have to seek a similar restriction on commons.

Statement by Durova

Shoemaker's Holiday and I have shared credit on roughly twenty featured pictures and sounds. May neither of us touch them again? The proposed wording, literally written, could have us both blocked or sitebanned for reverting routine vandalism or reorganizing our user galleries. Durova412 06:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Cool Hand Luke (re: Iridescent): Copied from my user page.

As of 15 February 2010 my most significant contributions have been:

Per Iridescent: 4.4% of total en:wiki featured content.

Iridescent raises a good point about how this would hamper my work. Examples:

  • The WikiCup asked me to judge this year. Although I declined that invitation I've given input at proposals there. A routine comment would be "We tried that idea last year and dropped it for 2010 due to [types of problems], which might be resolved with [specific changes] for 2011." Shoemaker's Holiday was one of last year's finalists at the Cup. So any mention of last year's dynamics could be an oblique comment on him.
  • See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cavalry At Balaklava, a current featured picture candidate. Yesterday I supported, then another reviewer said my support rationale was inexact: I had been trying to avoid mentioning an artist that Shoemaker had restored. Today I followed up posted the obvious name. If the motion passes I wouldn't risk that.
  • I would like to renew a proposal to change the "Picture of the day" section at Wikipedia's main page. The idea would to add featured sounds to the queue and rename it "Media of the day". In past discussions that's come close to implementation. That could help the featured sound program to grow, which would be wonderful. Shoemaker's Holiday gave excellent input in past discussions and he's contributed more featured sounds than any other editor.

Realistically, think of the email traffic this motion would generate for the arbitrators. I've been walking on eggshells for five months. I've avoided this person and he remains belligerent. This motion generates new ways for him to lodge complaints. Durova412 19:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies's revision helps. Would it be possible to reword from "comment upon" to "disparage"? If it were possible to refer to his work in positive ways that would free up productive encyclopedic discussion. Durova412 04:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SirFozzie

I have recused on this, because of knowledge of the parties, and because quite frankly, I have strong feelings on this. Shoemaker's Holiday, respectfully, you need to drop the WP:STICK, and walk away. I see no way this case will be accepted, nor any reason it SHOULD be accepted. Seriously, your behavior in this issue is disruptive here and it needs to end, and quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemaker, again, with all due respect.. you are NOT getting it. You are doing the equivalent of emotional blackmail here (that you won't edit here unless the Committee sanctions Durova out of your area. Also.. please note I'm saying it's the equivalent of.. I'm not accusing you of blackmail). I'll be one of the first to admit you have done a lot of quality work in the area of Featured Picture candidates, etcetera, and I'd be saddened if you decline to contribute any further.. but this crusade does you no good, on or off-wiki. If it's causing you this much trauma/stress.. then please, walk away for your own good. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Privatemusings

The link to shoemakers blog should never have been oversighted - I think Rlevse should apologise for that bungle.

The content of the skype chat is rather upsetting, and I can understand why Shoemaker felt bad - I think Durova should apologise for her part.

Shoe needs to be mindful of the bad habit that it's easy to get into where you leave, come back, leave, come back etc. etc. - it's probably unhealthy - but I hope clearing the air on some of this might be useful. Privatemusings (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

I was hoping Shoemaker's Holiday could be persuaded to withdraw this and seek some alternative means of resolving the issue. It's not actionable here, for sure, and the claims of harassment are exaggerated and not appropriate. Clearly SH feels hurt and angry and there may be something that can be done about that either through voluntary actions or some kind of dispute resolution process but this is just not arbitration material. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcbride: Have you not noticed how Durova has taken on board the comments in that RFC? She is now, if anything, more likely to assume good faith to excess than to hastily judge someone. That RFC is completely irrelevant to this case, which is a bilateral dispute between two former friends who seem to have had a falling out and one at least wants to play that out on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request by PeterSymonds

Please remove me as a party to this case; I wish for no involvement. My only involvement was the closure of the AN discussion, which has no bearing on anything relating to this request for arbitration. If there is a misconception that Durova solicited my closure off-wiki, please be assured that is not the case, as I explained here. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Juliancolton

I admire and respect both of the primary parties, so it's hard for me to take sides here. However, I'd just like to note that I wouldn't be so quick to reject this case if I were an arb. After several months, no resolution or compromise is in sight, and it's having a negative impact on multiple areas of the project (and indeed spilling into other projects now). I'm not especially familiar with the details of the ongoing quarrel between Shoe and Durova, but having had seen logs of one particular conversation of theirs, I can understand the reason for frustration on Shoe's part. At the same time, I'm left wondering why this dispute has dragged on for so long, and why it keeps getting stirred up. This is just a preliminary statement, and I'll add more details in time. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ arbitrators opining to decline: How else do you feel this dispute is going to be resolved? It's not limited to off-wiki discourse, as evident by the multiple threads at various admin noticeboards. This ongoing quarrel is harming the project, causing prolific contributors grief, and shows no sign of letting up. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shell captures my thoughts nicely. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to help resolve harmful disputes; if this isn't a harmful dispute, I don't know what is. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mitchazenia

Ok, this was not something I expected. I had just yesterday mentioned that I hadn't seen Shoe in months, but I have been around during the major off-wiki disputes. I really haven't talk to Durova in almost a week, mostly due to Skype technology problems. However, I think there is a point where we have to say enough is enough, but demanding community sanctions to places where you work, especially in the featured contribution department isn't going to help, and honestly. Shoe, I respect you, and I listen to you all the time, but man, its time to end this, just put it behind, get a fresh start, maybe a new username, and just go on. It's not that hard, and dealing with it in other ways helps :) - I am adding that I won't declare a side, maybe except that of a black hole somewhere in the next galaxy. I don't wanna be accused of supporting Durova while senile. - Mitch32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 22:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mbz1

It feels to me that Shoemaker's Holiday is put in a corner, with no exit. He posted to AN/I with no result, the link to Skype talk was removed, he was prohibited to use his user/talk pages to say why he left, and now he posted here. Maybe this is not the right place to ask for the resolution, yet the most important thing is a person, who needs some understanding. Dear Durova, I would like to appeal to you, please. You said: "I am a former sailor: on rare occasions when it's really deserved I speak like one." Everybody is different. Some people are hurt by a sailor's language more than others. Please do consider an apology. Just think about this: You could make a person feel better, you could make all that case to go away in a flash, you could make the user come back to Wikipedia and Commons, and you could make many users, who care about both of you to be very happy. Thank you, Durova!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Julian. It is a rather an unusual situation involving two very valuable contributors. IMO the situation should be talked over, and talked over in an open. Otherwise sooner or later it will come back. I still have a great hope on Durova, who could make it go away with only one sentence. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blurpeace

This stems from a mutually insignificant misunderstanding, in my opinion. Shoemaker has blown the situation entirely out of proportion and should have stepped away from the horse carcass long ago. I suggest that both parties, especially Durova, apologize to one another, and we move onto more important things. As for being named a party, I request that I be removed. I have no interest in enabling this "drama". Blurpeace 01:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sole Soul

One arbitrator said in a recent case "The idea that creating good content means that you can get away with poor behavior needs to stop". Well, will see if this case even got accepted. Sole Soul (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

The conversation that Shoemaker's Holiday published to his blog on March 6th is very concerning. All else being equal, Durova should never have treated SH the way she did. But to take this matter to arbitration now would be premature. You could both try putting your differences aside and just editing; or alternatively pursue mediation. AGK 01:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

The "H" Word, "harassment", gets way overused here, and on Wikipedia-critic sites as well. I've seen the Skype conference transcript that's at the center of the Durova/Shoemaker dispute, and my opinion of it has always been that neither party comes off particularly well in it, with lots of overreactions, unreasonableness, and drama-queening all around. Take two chill pills and call me in the morning, both of you. I'm not sure exactly what the ArbCom can do other than perhaps issuing sanctions requiring them to lay off one another. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cirt

I respect the featured content work by both Shoemaker's Holiday and by Durova. This is an unfortunate situation, but I must say I agree with the comment below, by arbitrator FayssalF (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment [76] by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) seems like a good idea, unfortunately. -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query from SandyGeorgia

Shoemaker's Holiday said:

In this egregious attack, she vowed, because I made a polite comment about a strange restoration choice: To prevent me getting the scanner she had promised to arrange through Wikipedia grant, which was necessary for me continuing work.

  1. Why is Shoemaker getting a grant from Wikipedia for his work? Could I-- or any of the nominators and reviewers and delegates who work so hard at FAC to put Wiki's best work on the mainpage-- get a cup of coffee, or maybe some journal subscriptions?
  2. Why is Durova, or why does she think she is, in a position to facilitate that grant?
  3. Why is court held off-Wiki, whether on Skype or IRC, such that this ugliness spills over to Wiki, partially obscured?

This is not a pretty situation. Perhaps keeping communication on Wiki would be good advice for Durova (and the 80-at-a-time Wiki editors I hear who join her on Skype), but I'm really curious about why Shoemaker has the impression that Durova is empowered to grant him access to Wikipedia funds.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MZMcBride

This is the latest in a long string of incidents involving Durova. The Arbitration Committee has no issue accepting cases without prior dispute resolution, though in this case, there is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durova, among other pages, I imagine.

Durova's behavior has been particularly egregious lately, nearly leading to a formal caution in a recent case and a proposal was put forth, by an Arbitrator, to restrict her from Arbitration cases in general. Her contributions in the project space truly are that bad.

The writing is on the wall and has been for ages. The fact that there are three recusals really speaks volumes: nobody is willing to man up and deal with this problematic user properly, for whatever reason. Probably as she'll go on an unholy tirade accusing people of sexual harassment and whatever else in order to obfuscate scrutiny of her own behavior. This isn't a lack of good faith on my part, mind you, she's actually done this. She went as far as to compare someone posting on her talk page to rape. Seriously.

Who knows. Perhaps the newer Arbitrators have more fight in them and are willing to do the job that needs to be done. Steve Smith? KnightLago? Hersfold? Ball is in your court. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Luna Santin

I know these attract quite a few comments, sometimes, so I'll keep this short and to the point: unless I'm missing something big, I don't think Rlevse or PeterSymonds can be considered active parties in this case (and I'm not sure about Blurpeace, either). Certainly someone might argue that Rlevse's use of suppression was a mistaken interpretation of policy or precedent, but given a read of discussion both prior to and following the action on oversight-l, I don't think a reasonable person would claim Rlevse was acting in bad faith. Likewise, I'm not sure that PeterSymonds is described as having done anything but archive a discussion thread.

Beyond that, I would describe this whole situation as unfortunate in the extreme.

Statement by Jehochman

If the parties won't back down, or volunteer for mediation, please accept this case and resolve it finally. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the concerns of Durova and Iridescent about definitions: let's avoid instruction creep. I think most clueful administrators can tell when somebody is trying to get somebody else's goat. If Durova and Shoemaker have worked on a piece of content together in the past, I think either is free to make good faith changes to that content, such as reverting vandalism. However, if one makes a change, the other ought not revert or otherwise comment on it, and neither should do anything else provocative. We can't concisely define provocative in this motion because each situation is unique, and a clever editor can usually find a way to be provocative in spite of any formal restrictions. We have to have some faith in the administrators responsible for enforcing the motion. Jehochman Talk 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I respect both parties in this case, but must agree with FayssalF in the most strongest of terms. Even getting mutually acceptable arbitrators as informal mediators would be useful, and much of the evidence is probably going to be private anyhow. I'd suggest that arbitrators look beyond the bait being dangled by users who have agendas here; nothing good is likely to come from accepting a formal onwiki case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by sort-of-not-really involved The_ed17

I am also really curious if someone can answer SandyGeorgia's first two questions, but that isn't very relevant to this case.

I am a member of Durova's chat on Skype, though I rarely log on anymore. At the time of the final flare-up, I heard about this dispute from both sides. From that knowledge and what I have read here, I firmly believe that both sides have blown this out of proportion. Durova significantly overreacted to Shoe's comment while he has overreacted ever since. Having said that, I urge Arbcom to decline this case. Simply put, no decision you render here can have a positive impact, as it will not force the two to work out their differences to a point where they can at least work in the same general area. Hopefully they will see that in the grand scheme of things, this isn't important; put water under the bridge, folks, and go back to your encyclopedic missions. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment by Nsk92

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case. The underlying dispute has been nasty and prolonged, with no end in sight. It is clear that standard venues, like AN/I, are not going to help here. Similarly, this dispute is not about any page or article, so there is nothing really to mediate here. Instead, the dispute is entirely about conduct, primarily off-wiki conduct. WP:HARASSMENT#Off-wiki harassment specifically covers off-wiki harassment and says: "Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." If there was indeed, some off-wiki harassment here, as Shoemaker's Holiday alleges, that certainly falls under the purview of the Arbitration Committee and constitutes sanctionalble conduct. It is pretty clear that the parties themselves are unable to settle this conflict (on or off wiki). An Arbiration case, even if no-one is seriously punished but only editors reminded/editors admonished/editors encouraged type remedies are adopted, would still bring the dispute to some kind of closure and allow Shoemaker's Holiday to come back to the project. Plus I think that some sort of a general statement from ArbCom regarding off-wiki conflicts (IRC, Skype, whatever) on wiki-related matters would be useful. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Will Beback

This is an ongoing dispute which the parties are unable to resolve on their own and which is affecting multiple areas of the project. Mediation seems unlikely to succeed since it concerns behavior rather than content. Perhaps this could be addressed by motion rather than a full case.   Will Beback  talk  17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SB_Johnny

While I don't think either party looks squeaky-clean in this situation, I think a couple principles bear looking into here. First, while this does involve "off-wiki-stuff", I don't think this bears any less relation to the project than what came up with MZMcBride several weeks ago, which was also, technically, off-wiki. Wikivoices is at least as "meshed" with Wikipedia as is Wikipedia Review, and I think if MZ had dodged questions about that issue to the same extent that Durova has in this case, he would have been quickly subject to a motion.

The apparent claims of copyright over the skype log, combined with the "offsite" jargon and Durova's (carefully partial) responses both here and on the noticeboards is creating a toxic atmosphere that needs a thorough airing out. Secret satellite societies (including mailinglists and perhaps now "semi-closed skype communities") have never been good for Wikipedia in the end, and shouldn't be permitted to gain the sort of political clout that's in evidence here. --SB_Johnny | talk 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick insert by Ks0stm

To the arbs (in particular Mailer Diablo and Cool Hand Luke): I thought this said off-wiki attacks could be considered in Arbitration cases. Ks0stm (TCG) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by FloNight

I ask ArbCom to open a case now. ArbCom is aware that there are long term issues related to both parties. I see no reason to delay opening the case for user conduct RFCs. The thread at AN/I documents the issue related to precipitating event. I agree with the contributors that say that this has spilled over into multiple areas on site and is disrupting the functioning of key areas of Wikipedia. This needs to be resolved with a permanent solution as soon as possible.

For several years now, SH has struggled to find a way to be a good contributor. SH has a lot to offer as a contributor but the editing environment at Wikipedia makes it difficult for him. I think the best way to help him is to open a case and develop a plan for him to execute when he runs into situations where he needs help. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the outside looking in, NonvocalScream

Can I suggest the use of technical features for both parties? I know that each mail client has a black/blocklist, skype has an ignore feature, IRC has an ignore command, comments on talk pages can be overlooked by parties, and undone on individual talk pages, by the individual. This is addressed directly to the parties: Respectfully, Can the two of you use these features to wall off the other? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ the motion: With respect to the committee and the parties, I think this motion is draconian. Both parties are heavy content generators. Is there no other way? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tom Harrison

Per Query from SandyGeorgia above, grants from Wikipedia? Tom Harrison Talk 23:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Varlaam

I have had my own small episode with Durova, but in her defence, she has given me some helpful advice when other folks were not forthcoming. Varlaam (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mr.Z-man

I don't really have any comments on the case, but what I see is a dispute between 2 wiki users, about wiki activities. The fact that the communication medium that most of it took place on was not on-wiki doesn't seem like it should be especially relevant. Mr.Z-man 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Giano

If this case is accepted, and I doubt it will be. It will only be another whitewash. The same usual people being covered for by the same usual people. Nothing positive will come of it, we will just see more feet of clay and others buried in the clay. Oversight and it's use has been so devalued and debased, it is now just another toy to be used at whim to help out one's friends - accept that, and you will find life at wikipedia far more tolerable.  Giano  23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Xavexgoem

It's pretty clear that the motion below will suffice. I fear parties to this dispute are looking for closure, and there is no process on WP for that. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motion should be made clear that this applies ONLY to en-wiki interactions, and that problems starting on Commons cannot be adjudicated here, because of Commons' effect on other wikis. That needs to be stated explicitly, or the motion becomes dangerously gameable (as in: we could lose two of our best featured editors) Xavexgoem (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Iridescent

If the motion as currently proposed goes through, someone needs to define "in any way" and "indirectly" from the beginning. Durova, in particular, has work scattered throughout the entire project, and it's not fair to expect either party to check the entire history not only of every article on which they comment, but of every image included in it. With a loose enough definition of "indirectly", I'll wager I could link Durova to at least 20% of the pages on the project.

Comment II: do the pair of you realise how ridiculous this looks? – iridescent 13:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Slaunger

Shoemaker mentions that a request for oversight has been submitted and accepted regarding a post Durova made on Commons a while ago relating to Shoemaker. I can confirm that this is the case, and that I submitted the request. I filed a similar request immediately after the post was originally done, which was rejected back then. My reason for requesting oversight was that in my perception it contained personal details of a sensitive nature. Both requests have been initiated by me personally, but before making the second request I first asked Shoemaker's offline if he perceived the posts as problematic concerning private details. He confirmed they were perceived as such. I feel a little uneasy to be posting here at all, as I am a dedicated Commons user unfamiliar with the process and circuitry here. Moreover, I am uncertain how relevant Commons affairs are here. --Slaunger (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/3/4/3)

  • Recuse SirFozzie (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse But may participate in a non arb role with evidence.RlevseTalk 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Shoemaker's Holiday, you are stating here and above that "the worst of the harassment happened over Skype. All such evidence is censored." I am deeply concerned that such a thing could be censored. But then, why have it on-wiki if it happened on skype?! Censorship or —whatever one would call it— doesn't change anything. A friendly note to all parties involved: You used to be very good friends and worked together to enhance the encyclopedia. That was your objective back then (I was invited once to Not the Wikipedia Weekly which was hosted by Durova and yourself on Skype itself). What changed? Focus on that objective and forget about your personal ones. We appreciate both your works but I believe the best approach is to handle it wisely between you two. This cannot be arranged by an ArbCom decision at the time being. Try formal or informal mediation first. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 01:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @JulianColton:
    Proposal A) User:Durova/Shoemaker's Holiday or User:Shoemaker's Holiday/Durova for mediation purposes. For better results I'd suggest that mediation discussions remain limited to Durova and SH (nobody else).
    Proposal B) both users know how to contact eachother off-wiki and settle their dispute.
    Proposal C) file a request for mediation.
    I'd personally prefer A or B if the users decide to keep it private. C is too formal for this case. But it is up to the parties.
    Let me be blunt here, Julian. Do you believe that ArbCom should spend its time on a simple (yes, this is simple as most other similar cases get rejected and directed towards mediation to say the least) user/user dispute which most of it happened off-wiki? Yes, such disputes surely harm the project somehow but only and mainly because the parties insist on pushing them forward and I believe that accepting these kind of cases would be much more harmful. In theory, very experienced users —who used to be friends for a couple of years; cooperating, collaborating on articles and pictures together, presenting ArbCom cases together, proposing mediation for others, etc...— are able to fix their disputes. If these experienced and old friends users can't make an effort to mediate then who would do it?!
    Now, I got a simple solution D. If I were Durova I'd just apologize to SH. And then, SH would just say "fine, let's go work on a picture or article". So who is not wanting any of the above 4 proposals?! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to the parties After today's events I must ask the 2 parties if they'd accept Newyorkbrad's motion proposal below. If not, then we would be left with one option; that is of a full arbitration case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse - But may comment in my role as the oversighter who completed the majority of the suppressions to which this matter refers, to provide a description of the relevant actions and discussions without revealing the contents of the suppressed edits. Risker (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. No on-site dispute resolution needed. I agree with FayssalF in full. Cool Hand Luke 02:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept This is clearly spilling over in multiple areas and since its ongoing, that seems to be an indication that perhaps the community doesn't see a way out of this. There have been comments from others that both editors involved may have been problematic elsewhere; diffs would be appropriate. Shell babelfish 08:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept: broadly per Shell.  Roger Davies talk 09:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - I see nothing sanctionable here; unpleasant interactions over Skype are regrettable, but as I understand it they can be blocked easily enough. While I appreciate the parties' desire for sunlight here, I don't see how a case will accomplish anything but increase the unpleasantness. Finally, I note that allegations of abuse of oversight should be brought to WP:AUSC. Steve Smith (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to MZMcBride: the RFC cited was almost entirely about the !! (talk · contribs) affair, which is thankfully long since dealt with. This RFAR is about a specific dispute between Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday. If you believe that there is a pattern of long-term problem behaviour with Durova, I'd encourage you to initiate a new RFC and then, if concerns persist, a RFAR. The value of user conduct RFCs is not only in that they can actually resolve disputes (generally, in my experience, they don't) but that they can crystallize issues and provide some clarity of exactly what behaviour is at issue and how it fits within community norms by the time it reaches ArbCom. Steve Smith (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once upon a time there were two star footballers who were once in the same team and were great friends, who worked towards a common goal. One of them got transferred out of the team, and then something very unpleasant happened between the two footballers that soured the relationship to the point that they were not on talking terms, even to the extent of one backing out of the international team because he feels there is no way for them to be working together. When it came to the day where the teams of the two footballers were playing against each other, one of them was still angry at the other that he refused to shake the other's hand, but under the same field for the same ball the game went through for 90 minutes without incident in the end.
  • The referee doesn't issue a yellow card to either of the two footballers for whatever has happened outside the pitch. He can only show the yellow card if some incident occured as a result on the pitch itself. My suggestion is for the parties to disengage, cool off tensions, and perhaps attempt mediation if it is feasible. Decline. - Mailer Diablo 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but I think this is Handbags rather than something more sinister (such as match fixing), which then the sports body would have stepped in. It looks pretty pointless to open a full case for something like this. - Mailer Diablo 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have carefully considered all of the statements by the parties and others. Apart from the parties' valued and appreciated contributions to the featured content process, every aspect of this matter is miserable and wretched. I will not support opening an arbitration case in this matter, because I believe that doing so may be damaging to the well-being of one or more participants. I would support a motion directing that the two principal parties refrain from commenting about each other and have nothing further to do with each other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I understand the community's call for us to open a case here. People are tired of the drama caused by this primary school dispute. I am too. However, the reality is a case is not going to achieve much. A case would be a month of he said she said about things that for the most part happened off Wikipedia. In the end, we would likely ban them both from interacting with each other anyway. I think it may be best to enact a motion as Brad suggests, and let the parties move on. KnightLago (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Text of motion prior to copy-edit, with deletions struckthrough and additions underlined, at 04:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):

i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall not in any way interact neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova or her featured content work on any page in the English Wikipedia.
ii) Durova shall not in any way interact neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday or his featured content work on any page in the English Wikipedia.
iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Wikipedia:Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

The Arbitration Committee notes and deplores the acrimonious nature of the dispute between Shoemaker's Holiday and Durova, and the way it has been needlessly prolonged and intensified on- and off-wiki by both parties, and resolves that:

a) While noting the provisions in paragraph (b):

i) Shoemaker's Holiday shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Durova on any page in the English Wikipedia.
ii) Durova shall neither communicate with nor comment upon either directly or indirectly Shoemaker's Holiday on any page in the English Wikipedia.
iii) Both parties are expressly prohibited from responding in kind to perceived violations of sections (i) and (ii) above and should instead report the perceived violation to the Arbitration Committee by email.

b) Both parties may, within reason, comment within the same pages (for example, in the Wikipedia:Featured Pictures topic area and similar) providing their comments do not relate directly or indirectly to the other party. They may also, within reason, revert blatant third-party vandalism to each others' or shared works.

c) Should either Shoemaker's Holiday or Durova violate the letter or spirit of these restrictions, they may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator for short periods of up to one week; after the third such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year. All blocks shall be logged below. Appeals of any blocks may be made to the Arbitration Committee.

(There being 16 arbitrators, six of whom are either inactive or recused, the majority is 6) ~ Amory (utc) 14:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1.  Roger Davies talk 03:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xavexgoem. Copyedited to add "the English". This was based on standard wording but now duly clarified for the special circumstances of this case.  Roger Davies talk 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nonvocalscream. I've just further copyedited this motion to clarify its thrust, which is on communication and commentary.  Roger Davies talk 04:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KnightLago (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Necessary due to the continued—and under the circumstances, baffling—escalation. Cool Hand Luke 13:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iridescent: I honestly doubt that Durova could be linked to 20 percent of the content on this site. At any rate, this alleged figure is immaterial because we're asking them not to comment on each other's work. If an editor adds a citation to an article once categorized by the other party, that does not imaginably comment on the other's work. On the other hand, if one radically revises a work that the other party brought to featured status, that may be a problem—especially if they make a comment like "this is rubbish," thereby indirectly commenting on the work of another. There are gray areas, no doubt, but we would be better off if we could get rid of even the blatant on-site attacks.
    @Durova: I think this is an implausible interpretation, but I don't think we're worse off if you decide to interpret the restrictions so broadly. The kernel of it is commentary; avoid commenting on SH and his work. Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am very saddened to witness experienced Wikipedia editors arrive to this situation. To be sincere, it reminds me of primary schools' disputes but here we go with this motion. Because probably one or both of you are stubborn you had to wait for someone else to fix it when you could have just promised yourselves to leave eachother alone. For me, you both have done it wrong all along... You've done the same things you accuse eachother of violating. One more thing, you have done great work with your featured content but you've wasted much of the time of other people with this case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Steve Smith (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With the hopes we can all go back to doing something more productive now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per many of the other arbitrators' comments. Please note that this motion is intended to help solve a problem rather than to create new ones, and is to be interpreted and enforced in the spirit of reasonableness for that purpose. Wikilawyerish attempts by anyone to trace a convoluted path between Durova and Shoemakers Holiday on some page for the purpose of claiming that the restriction has been violated will be unwelcome. On a personal level, I strongly urge the parties to use their best efforts to turn the page and move beyond the types of deeply undesirable interactions that have taken place here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Echoing Newyorkbrad, wikilawyering will only cause further tension, so please remember the spirit of this motion and deescalating the situation is most important. Shell babelfish 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I sincerely hope that the two parties can actually reconcile, but I'm won't object to this for now given the circumstances. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
  1. Recused. Further, I will sayeth not. SirFozzie (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recused.RlevseTalk 11:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recused. Carcharoth (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Recused. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 06:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Sandstein

Statement moved to page history because of length.  Sandstein  00:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement (with reply to Carcharoth and Hersfold) hereby retracted and removed; it was ill-considered. Sorry.  Sandstein  19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trusilver

The statement above is taken from my talk page and clearly outlines all I have to say on the matter except for this: What I did, I do because of the principle of the matter. If you have principles and then slink away as soon as they are challenged, then you never had them to begin with. The thing that most struck me about this issue is that Sandstein read the ANI complaint, studied the sanctions and the past history, studied the nature of the current complaint and all the history associated with it then wrote up his decision and posted it to the ANI board in a whopping... 12 minutes according to his edit history. Wow... it would take me a minimum of an hour to make a decision I am comfortable with about a situation with this much gravity. I did, in fact, study the situation and everything attached to it for four days before unblocking. The truth as I see it is that Sandstein made a quick block, only doing his homework much later after realizing it was turning into a powderkeg. He then covered up his bad judgement with zealousness. Arbcom sanctions cannot, and must not be allowed as an end run around actually having to use good judgment. He failed. This is all I have and will have to say on this matter. Good morning to all of you. Trusilver 07:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a hatchet job on my statement to trim it down, the rest is on my talk page. I will be more specific when I have a chance to, I'm extremely short on time right now and don't expect that to change until Friday. And just as a totally off-topic observation, I like the new block template Sandstein noted above, it's a definite positive. Trusilver 07:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brews_ohare

There is no case.

The sanctions applicable to Trusilver depend upon whether the block is garden-variety, or imposed by sanction. It isn't just whether the block was a good block, or whether Trusilver showed good judgment, it's also a question of what rules apply.

The nature of the block has received little attention from administrators, who have jumped to the notion that it is a consequence of sanctions.

Block not sanctions related: My lengthy Talk page discussions led to a topic ban to avoid technical discussion related to physics, or physics-related topics. This ban was not violated here, because sanctions do not apply to general discussion, namely here and here, which serve as basis for the block. These diffs are general, not physics-related. Thus, the block is not sanctions imposed, and is not protected against reversal. Details are in my unblock request.

Block violated protocol and majority opinion: The preceding argues there is no sanctions-imposed block. However, even supposing the block is of this nature (which, I repeat, is not proven), it may be overturned because a majority opposes it, and because its implementation was contrary to protocol. Here is why Sandstein's block is reversible:

1. A WP:A/N/E motion was brought by Headbomb to impose a block. All participants were against it. Despite this clear indication that a block was dubious, Sandstein suddenly appeared, closed down the discussion, imposed a block, and erased contributions that arrived shortly after his action. There was no warning, and no attempt made to meet the objections raised. (According to this resolution, "administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution.")
2. The alleged infraction was minor: no harm was done, nor intended. Trivia could be let slide, but Sandstein elected: "So what! Any infraction, whatever its circumstances or result must be punished, and punished as severely as is possible." That despite my originating motives were of a nature to be encouraged, not punished. Sandstein's action violates the wording of the restrictions: “impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia”.
3. Following the block, Hell in a Bucket initiated discussion. This discussion was summarily classified as an Appeal (although no motion was under review, only opinions formulated), and shut down by Durova, as being in the wrong venue. As all discussion opposed the block, this action seemed intended to squelch reversal.
4. In subsequent discussion on my Talk page, all but a few opposed the block.

Summary: The block wasn't dictated by sanctions, but elected by Sandstein in a sequence of actions seriously violating protocol, and inviting disciplinary action. Despite two attempts to stifle opinion, except for a very few administrators that came to summary judgment, no-one supported the block. This opposition satisfies the criterion of "clear, substantial, and active community consensus". Trusilver's action supported the majority view that the block was improperly imposed and overly severe. Trusilver has not reversed a block made in response to sanctions, but overturned an improperly instituted block based upon a pretext.

Response to other contributors can be found on my Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment upon ArbCom Enforcement Motion: This motion makes it difficult to overturn an individual administrator's interpretation of an ArbCom ruling, presumably on the basis that such interpretation is unambiguous, and therefore to be treated more gravely than other actions by a singe administrator. That premise is valid if the ArbCom ruling is very clear, but such usually is not the case where an overturn is at issue. ArbCom rulings that lead to such ambiguity should instead be refused enforcement until they are worded unequivocally. Then no disputes over enforcement will arise, and this motion would hardly be needed. Brews ohare (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment upon Sandstein's displeasure: Sanstein is concerned that “AE actions may in practice be undone at will by anybody”, any administrator, that is. That is an exaggeration, as no-one is undoing an AE action here at all. It is Sandstein's action that is being undone by Trusilver, and that action is a result of misinterpretation of the AE action by Sandstein. Or, at least, a different interpretation by Trusilver. There is nothing written that says the first admin to interpret an AE action is the truest interpretation, or that Sandstein has some supernatural connection to omniscience. The problem is with the sanction: it is badly written, sloppily amended by Tznkai (a single administrator taking his individual action, not AE, & who has backed away from his action) all resulting in a morass that can be interpreted variously. There is no violation of sacred rules here by Trusilver: just a different view of the murk. Enforcement of such a quagmire is fraught with difficulty, and the easiest way to avoid these problems is to refuse all enforcement of badly worded sanctions until ArbCom cleans them up. Such a refusal of enforcement would annul Sandstein's actions, basically the same result as Trusilver's actions, but more generally based. Brews ohare (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm by Icewedge

"reinstate the block for its remaining duration of about half a day or to annotate the block log to reflect that the block was invalidly lifted", because re-blocking him for half a day will help the encyclopedia so much! Right? Icewedge (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

Wheel-warring without discussion on blocks imposed under WP:AE is a strict no-no. Although Trusilver might have found support for his 11th hour symbolic unblock from non-administrative editors, not necessarily uninvolved or in good standing, he does not appear at any stage to have sought feedback from other uninvolved administrators. His unblock could send Brews ohare the incorrect message that (a) he was inappropriately blocked by Sandstein (b) that the disruptive edits concerning a physics-related article are permitted under his ArbCom sanctions. This could easily be dealt with by motion as Steve Smith has written, without any need to clarify Brews ohare's blocklog. Mathsci (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dr.K.

This is a very complex and lengthy case. I have refused to participate in its previous incarnations because I simply could not find the taste to follow the walls of text that were generated during the SoL Arbcom case as well as the rest of the walls of text that were generated in the talkpage of the SoL article itself. I guess now is my time to create my very own walls of text. What drew me in the latest incident was the report by Headbomb to the AE page. I found the report to be an overreaction. I was subsequently shocked to see the length of the block Sandstein imposed on Brews. I have made many statements, all a matter of record, against the block. I realise that there is a bureaucratic process to be followed when there are AE cases and I respect that. I also respect Sandstein as an admin in general but in this particular case I find his actions severe and unbalanced compared to the gravity of the offence. I recently talked with Durova, an editor whom I respect immensely. She suggested that we retroactively bring this matter to RFAR and follow due process so that everyone can go back home happy. I entertained the thought, out of sheer respect for Durova and also because the outcome of all around handshakes and happiness is quite attractive, but I found on retrospect that such optimism is unrealistic because it oversimplifies the issues and principles involved. So I went back to basics. I will not tire you with any more details other than to say that AE is a valuable tool and its processes need to be respected. But it cannot serve as a cover to prolong bad blocks and legitimise dubious reports that unduly stigmatise editors. In clear cases such as this incident, principled and well rationalised actions such as the ones taken by Trusilver are to be commended as they are in fact taken to uphold the best traditions of Wikipedia. Brews was blocked for almost six and a half days, and his unblock was largely symbolic. In cases where the punishment is clearly excessive and disproportionate and thus unduly punitive, sitting on the sidelines and not doing anything not only approaches cruelty but also demoralises the editors who become aware of the situation. Trusilver by making a half day-early unblock simply put on record that there was an error in the original block and took a moral and principled stance that would have made Junius proud. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 08:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Supplementary note I am encouraged to note that statements from Risker, Tznkai, Enric Naval, Hans Adler, Durova, Jehochman, Fences and Windows and others point to a direction of understanding and reconciliation as befits the special circumstances, nuances and complexities of this case and an AGF-based wiki environment. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supplementary note # 2 In regards to SirFozzie's characterisation of the participants in the discussion on Brews's talk page as "highly charged partisans" I hope that intellectual debate with those we disagree with is still possible in Wikipedia without the need to rinse after the debate with detergents. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 00:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tombe

Consensus at the original arbitration enforcement was unanimously against the block, and indeed, Sandstein even removed one comment [77] which pointed to the real cause of all the trouble.[78] And ARBCOM can't even deal with the current crisis without having to call upon some administrator who clouded the whole issue with some dodgy extra sanctions. Were their own sanctions not good enough? Was there not enough scope to bully Brews ohare using the original sanctions in isolation? There is one thing that ARBCOM doesn't do. They don't arbitrate. Has anybody ever seen ARBCOM arbitrating? Why not propose a motion in favour of ARBCOM restricting their activities to arbitration. Arbitration is a tricky business which requires testing the water to see how far two sides in a dispute can be pushed. David Tombe (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to those arbitrators who claim that there was no attempt made at discussion
Have a look at this archived AN/I thread [79]. Despite what you all say, there was indeed an attempt made at discussion, and many editors were coming forward stating their opinion that Brews ohare should be unblocked. When editor Clayt85 made his statement that Brews ohare should be unblocked, Durova closed the discussion and archived the thread. Even adminsitrator AGK was contemplating unblocking Brews ohare. SirFozzie also arrived on the scene, spoke in riddles and departed again. He had his chance, but he didn't take it. It was only in the wake of this AN/I thread being prematurely closed, and following discussions between Trusilver and Sandstein that Trusilver decided to unblock Brews ohare. So those who are keeping up the canard that no discussions took place are being less than honest. David Tombe (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pieter Kuiper

Too much drama. There was no need for Headbomb to report the "infractions", there was no need for Sandstein to issue a one week block (certainly not with such speed), it was not really necessary to unblock (although I am inclined to applaud it), there was no need to bring the case here. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Ncmvocalist's proposal to de-admin Truesilver is pushing all this drama to heights of absurdity. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowden

Agreed its too much drama, but Sanstein was right to bring it here. S/he carries out a pretty thankless task enforcing sanctions and hardly deserves admonition for following the rules. We should also expect admins to following the ruling referenced by SirFozzie below. There are plenty of ways to raise concern about an enforcement and they should be followed. --Snowded TALK 11:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ncmvocalist

A joint effort was made by the wide community and the Committee to appropriately address the issue of tendentious editing, and what we have is a single admin destroying the effect of all that time and effort we all could've spent dealing with less controversial issues, like obvious vandalism. Trusilver chose not to assist Brews with an appeal; an admin with a genuine concern would have done so if they felt the block was so bad or there was a procedural irregularity. If Trusilver did this without any appropriate reminders or cautions, this would not be such an issue. But here, Trusilver not just unblocked in the face of cautions against doing so, but inappropriately invoked IAR to rationalize the action. Even in the response to concerns/feedback after the actions were taken, there's no sign of an admin with good judgement. It would be incomprehensible if Trusilver retained an administrator position after exercising such egregiously poor judgement, or engaging in such well-calculated disruption, on a scale that is perhaps historically unmatched. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Was requested to review my view on this so here it is for those who want to read it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Had the issue I raised in my first sentence not existed, and had there been no reminders or cautions, then I would've of course asked for clemency and objected to a desysop - especially in light of some of Trusilver's recent comments that Guy alludes to. However, each of the sentences in my above comment spell out circumstances that existed in this case which I cannot ignore, and so really, my view has not changed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Count Iblis

During the appeal of Brew's topic ban launched by User:Likebox, I was shocked to see that apart from Cool Hand Luke and another Arbitror's input, there was no proper discussion of the arguments. I wrote a last remark that this if Brews were to simply violate his topic ban and if he were to get blocked for that, then some other Admin may unblock him, thereby diminishing the absolute respect for Arbcom topic bans.

Now Trusilver does write that: "the chief problem does not lie with ARBCOM", however this is how it seems to him. You have very unreasonable one week block for something very trivial. However, the very reason why this is so does trace back all the way to the unreasonable Arbcom topic ban. If the topic ban had been reasonable to begin with, then the potential for disrupotion when violating the topic ban would be much better visible to univolved Admins. Of course, then one can still argue that one should appeal the Arbcom topic ban, but as I just explained above, the appeals process in this case was a joke.

Then on the issue of applying IAR, the actual text of IAR does not have any qualifications like that the rule you're ignoring has to be ridiculous. It does not mention any consensus or anything of the sort. IAR is clearly about ignoring a rule in order to improve Wikipedia, nothing more or less. This also means that Arbcom cannot rule on how to apply IAR, because that very Arbcom ruling would be subject to IAR as well. The only way to modify IAR is to modify the actual text of IAR itself. But that is something that can only be done with community consensus, certainly not by Arbcom.

Then the question is is the application of IAR ok. if the sole criterium is that it should improve Wikipedia, as IAR itself says? Clearly, Brews' one week block was hindering his involvement in geology articles. Awickert who Brews was collaborating with, cleary said that the block was a problem. This has to be balanced against the potential of disrupting Wikipedia by the unblocking. On that issue the situation is very clear. Brews merely violating the topic ban would not do any harm at all, as the topic ban is clearly nonsensical. Also, the alleged violation of the topic ban was infinitessimal. I can repeat again here that if Arbcom were to only issue topic bans in cases where it is clearly necessary, you couldn't have had a case like this. Count Iblis (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with Hans Adler Count Iblis (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New comment by Count Iblis

Desysopping Trusilver would be too harsh as AGK points out. An argument by me in which I compare this case with that of another far more problematic Admin who was not desysopped was removed by Arbcom on the grounds of "soapboxing" and "irrelevancy". In that argument I argue that ArbCom takes to much a procedural attitude when making decisions. The fact that my original comments cannot be admitted is presumably due to the same flaw. Count Iblis (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein's latest threat to call on Admins to boycott AE.

This is absolutely not consistent with the Wikipedia spirit. Why not make a constructive counter proposal? If you say that Trusilver should be punished, then you are forgetting that this in itself will not stop future Admins from doing the same thing. How else do you explain the fact that SlimVirgin's desysopping did not stop Trusilver? Count Iblis (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Likebox

Sandstein enforced the ruling following its exact letter, as it was when it was issued. Still, he was patiently informed before closing of some points ( see here): continued...

Not only did all this not influence Sandstein decision, Sandstein closed and archived the active discussion, While an editor was inserting a comment [80]! That's bad behavior.

Premature archiving disrupts. In this case it seems to have been done purely for self-interest. I will ask ArbCom to consider this point in its deliberations.

Trusilver acted correctly in this case.Likebox (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Heabomb/Finell See here

To All Administrators Who Are Following This: The context is the SlimVirgin case. SlimVirgin reverted an Arbcom enforcement block, leading to this dialog:

"We must have real power to enforce decisions!" --- said ArbCom
"So enforcement of our decisions is no longer subject to review, except by us!"--- they concluded

As you can see, the robs the community of administrators of the important power to check one another's blocks. This decision puts this power in the hands of a few overworked ArbCom members. This is a radical expansion of ArbCom's power, and who decided on this? ArbCom itself! Since when is ArbCom allowed to expand its powers unilaterally?

One consequence of this expansion of power is that there is no proper venue for asking to be unblocked regarding ArbCom enforcement (per Durova).

I will suggest a guiding principle: NO BLOCKING POWER WITHOUT UNBLOCKING POWER. If ordinary administrators can block, it must also be possible for ordinary administrators to unblock. If you have to worry about someone unblocking you, you will be a lot more careful. You might even take longer than 12 minutes.

What is prevented by this is the ability to act without possibility of peer review. This is what makes Trusilver's actions praiseworthy. ArbCom should admit: We goofed, or administrators should take back their power.

administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except * with the written authorization of the Committee, or * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so
  1. Does ArbCom have the ability to pass this motion, which increases its own power?
  2. SirFozzie's question--- "Symbolic or not?"
  3. Is it desired by a consensus of Administrators?
  4. Is it desired by a consensus of editors?
  5. Does it benefit the operation of the encyclopedia?

I think this is the root evil. Redacting this is good for everyone, especially for ArbCom, which is already overworked.

Comment by Awickert

This whole thing is silly, but potentially very damaging, and should go away. A few specific points:

  1. WP:AGF is a key principle here. It is clear to me that Brews did not know that he was acting in violation of his topic ban (the namespace was wrong, but the comments were unrelated). It would have been better overall to warn him and give him the chance to take steps to fix things, instead of just blocking him for a week, causing lots of dramahz and keeping him from improving articles, which he does well and prolifically.
  2. It has been repeatedly stated that there was no broad consensus for an unblock. There was unanimous community consensus against a block in the first place. Though Brews was technically in violation of his ban (per the namespace), I don't think that the action taken was appropriate (nothing against you, Sandstein: divergence of opinion).
  3. Most importantly: This is a hairy and uncomfortable situation in which (a) arbcomm non-overruling rules are on one side, and (b) a whole bunch of folks finding the block unfair and/or detrimental to the writing of an encyclopedia on the other. The best solution IMO is to let this one slide with the explicit note that arbcomm will pay perfect attention next time something like this comes up so that it will be handled in a way that doesn't create controversy. Any other action will create winners, losers, and bitterness: 3 things that I don't want to see here. Awickert (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

I am racing real life deadlines and losing so I only have enough time to make a brief statement for at least 12 hours or so.

The discretionary sanctions I placed on Brews ohare were never intended to be long term, but to be reviewed periodically. I had in fact been considering proposing lifting some of the discretionary sanctions, but Brews ohare did not seem overly interested when I brought up the topic with him in January [81], and there was some other drama, on wiki and off, at that time, so it never came up again. The sanctions were meant to be both self-perpetuating and temporary, and I made a drafting error that didn't make it clear what the "default" state was, leading to this unfortunate confusion. I apologize.

It is my understanding that Brews, if he wishes for the discretionary sanctions to be reviewed (and possibly lifted) he can and should start the process himself at any time he's comfortable with it, or that it should be done anyway just because the sanction itself indicates that it is self-reviewing. I have not had the opportunity to review the current incident in detail, nor the last 2 months or so of Brews' editing history, so I can't comment on it yet. If I can, I will comment sooner, but it will probably have to wait until late tonight, EST.

Overall however, when I made those sanctions my intent was to create less drama, not more, so I encourage everyone to look in that direction for solutions.

I have a few brief observations. AE, like administration in general only functions when the administrators work together with each other. That means we need to give and take, discuss, not demand. Don't be stubborn, and do not, do not invoke IAR. We are supposed to be working together. This of course applies to administrators, who should be doing their best to set an example, but it also applies to everyone who decides to jump in. It helps no one to needlessly antagonize or make broad rhetorical gestures. Arbitration is a blunt instrument and there isn't much it can do other than give people soapboxes for being ridiculous and point fingers at each other over things that don't really matter all that much. Brews is an excellent contributor, but it isn't always enough. You also need to be able to avoid causing trouble. It wouldn't be fair to blame this particular incident on him, but the way he's responded to the situation makes me a bit wary. My suggestion is for Sandestein and Trusilver to both apologize to eachother (if you can't think of a reason to apologize, make one up ) and Brews ask on AE for a review of his additional sanctions when he feels he's ready to prove that they are unnecessary.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

I find it hugely ironic that every person who attempts to help Brews ends up being attacked like a enemy of the state. Trusilver does what everyone on this fucking group doesn't.....He discussed his reasons, clearly, calmly and invoked several prinicpals to explain himself. Is there something wrong with a admin explaining themselves? Trying to get honest answers from here is like looking for a honest man in congress, it ain't going to happen. My question I keep asking and not once get a answer to is how long will the Arbcom assume bad faith with everything that Brews or his supporters do? This is a witch hunt, nothing more then that, you see a admin that used reason instead of blindly following the Rank and File and you see the argumentum ad hominem attacks begin. For proof you can look at Mathsci comment above, he uses the fallacy because we stand in a small group we are somehow less then the other editors here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all: I have to agree with Finell in utter sincerity. I'm tired of the same arguments too. However there is clear disagreement here. Several Editors agree with Brews, several agree with Arbcom. How many times will we keep coming here over issues regarding this? I'm sure that Brews supporters will not cease in the clamor, nor the supporters for the continuance of sanctions. When will it stop, when will people from each group assume good faith about each other? Truthfully the same group of editors come to hurl brews down as the ones that come to defend him., we at a impasse. Sometimes in history it has been nec. to compromise and find a way to work with others, just for the sake of peace. There has definitely frivolous blocks over this topic ban and no one seems to be willing ot back down. How has this action prevented disruption? If anything it has caused more because of the lack of agreement in this case. Who will be the first to let the past go and let a new reality take place? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Headbomb

That 3RR thread is very clearly physics related (Brews is topic banned from ALL physics related discussion, by ARBCOM) and very clearly in the Wikipedia namespace (from which Brews is banned, by Tznkai). At the very top of the page you see "infraparticle", and the participants in that thread, prior to Brews are Likebox, Micheal C Price, Count Iblis, and myself, which were all involved in the original SoL case (either through Speed of Light or following amendment caused by Brews' participation in the WP namespace, such as WP:ESCA). Brews commenting in that thread is an act of particular cluelessness considering its scope and its participant. It's a clear cut violation of his original topic ban (which is what I care here), its following amendment by Tznkai (which is still active, even thought it may not be needed [I'm not convinced of that, but that's not my call]).

And concerning the general idea that admins can overturn ARBCOM because they feel like it, that's about the worse idea possible, and the fastest road to chaos and wheel warring. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And because Likebox and Tombe won't ever get tired of repeating that I make frivolous request, Likebox's block request was made because I interpreted his comments to mean that he willfully and deceptively sourced infraparticle (see this comment "I am very proud of my blocks. The "sourcing" of infraparticle was a joke--- none of the references provided at all touch the subject in the article [...] At the moment, the opponents can be distracted by smoke and mirrors."). Making a block request after a known edit warrer, who's proud of his blocks, says something like this, is certainly not a frivolous request. (In the end, the sourcing issue turned out to be a misunderstanding. But that, of course, was impossible to know at the time I made the request.)
Likewise Tombe is banned from physics related discussion, much like Brews is. So Tombe commenting on the infraparticle article also falls in the scope of his topic ban IMO. And I did say in Tombe's ARBCOM/Enforcement's request upon further review, it is true that David hasn't commented directly on the content. While it's way too close to the fringes of his ban to my liking, especially with his accusations of cowardice, I won't push this. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least Brews should be reblocked/unblocked so a note appears in the block log saying that the unblock from Trusilver was inappropriate, and that the original block was appropriate. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Finell

I apologize for not being my usual verbose self, but I'm really, really tired of going through the same arguments by the same characters over, over, and over again. I'm also tired of seeing IAR invoked so freely anytime somebody disagrees with some action or policy.

I agree with Headbomb's comments. Brews was not really the cause of this drama. Rather, he was collateral damage from Likebox playing games with the rest of us who were insisting on sources for unsourced content in Infraparticle. First, Likebox purported to provide sources that we accepted in good faith, then he bragged on Jimbo's talk page that he had fooled us into accepting his sources ("distracted by smoke and mirrors", quoted with diff by Headbomb above), then he was justifiably blocked, and then he somehow managed to persuade an administrator that the blocking administrator, and the rest of us, misunderstood his remarks about how he fooled us.

But I am spending far too much my time in arguments with or about Wikipedians who utterly disregard Wikipedia's policies and processes, and then complain when they or their allies get sanctioned. I've stood up for Brews several times in the past few months, but he keeps managing to inject himself into disputes unnecessarily. I've had it, and I don't just mean with Brews.—Finell 20:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Durova

This may be one of the rare situations where amnesty really is appropriate. The Arbitration Enforcement board instructions have an important omission: they do not state where appeals of AE decisions may be made (the instructions only specify when appeals of other things may be submitted to AE, which is difficult to parse). Also there's no clear statement in any readily accessible place of which arbitration-related actions the community may review. This led to a lot of confusion. We don't want proposals like this to move forward or situations like this to recur. So the best solution would be to determine whether the discretionary sanction on Brews Ohare was applied appropriately, with amnesty toward both acting administrators. Then revise project space to clarify the appropriate scope and means of community-based AE appeals. Durova412 19:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In followup to Jehochman and in fairness to Trusilver, the outcome of the appeal at ANI was a procedural close which I implemented based upon an imperfect recollection of the SlimVirgin desysop. Mea culpa for that share of the confusion. So without endorsing Trusilver's use of the IAR policy, it's possible to excuse it. SlimVirgin was cautioned in four prior arbitration cases before receiving a six month desysop. It wouldn't be appropriate to apply that solution mechanically to Trusilver. Stating this without any opinion on the merits of Brews Ohare's appeal. Durova412 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Jehochman's assertion "The bold text SirFozzie quotes below has been added prominently to the top of WP:AE", this is incorrect. That text is nowhere on the arbitration enforcement page. Durova412 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Jehochman, this is weird: a cut and paste search for that text on the page didn't turn it up (and I wasn't the only one who searched for a statement about appeals venue without success). Would you agree that an editor instruction section on how to appeal decisions of this board would be a good idea? Durova412 18:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Wikilawyering should be discouraged. Brews has been testing the limits of their sanctions multiple times. If Brews had complied with the letter and the spirit, and had ceased the battleground behavior, they probably could have gotten the sanctions lifted some time ago. Regrettably, a number of "friends" have encouraged and supported a continued pattern of disruptive editing. This is regrettable, and should be dealt with somehow. I have no idea why Trusilver didn't get an agreement with Sandstein before undoing the block. Durova is right that the process is not perfectly documented, so an appeal lodged in the wrong place could have been acted on nonetheless, but I disagree with the idea that people should be let off the hook. An appeal was made, and the outcome was not what Trusilver wanted, but Trusilver acted anyways stating "per ignore all rules". That's bogus because "per WP:IAR" is not a magic phrase that allows an admin to do whatever they please whenever they like. If Trusilver fails to promptly recognize their error and undertake never to repeat it, they should face the usual sanction: loss of adminship. Jehochman Brrr 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: I am in favor of granting a second chance iff Trusilver confirms that they will strictly abide by the relevant policies regarding arbitration enforcement actions. We are not forcing any apologies; we are forcing an acknowledgement that policy has been understood and will be followed. Jehochman Brrr 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Durova, times have changes since the SlimVirgin case you reference. The bold text SirFozzie quotes below has been added prominently to the top of WP:AE, and announcements were made to the community that arbitration enforcement actions are not to be overturned by an individual administrator acting on their own belief. Perhaps Trusilver has no knowledge of these changes; I've never seen them at WP:AE before. For that reason I am willing to give a second chance if they acknowledge the policy and promise to follow it. Asking somebody to acknowledge and follow what they are already bound to is hardly an onerous condition. Jehochman Brrr 02:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the text is there. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header, the paragraph titled Administrator information. It was added by Elonka in 2008.[82] Presumably an administrator would read the instructions before wading in. (Feel free to remove this meta comment when it is no longer needed.) Jehochman Brrr 04:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Tznkai, do you really think it's excusable for an administrator to refer to their peers as a bunch of bottom-feeding wannabe politicians? I think not. That matter needs to be corrected, and additionally you ought not demand or even suggest apologies. If somebody wants to apologize, they will. Don't press them. Jehochman Brrr 03:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PBS

I am administrator who has only recently become aware of this saga, and my only interest in it is the implications of administrative wheel warring.

I agree with, User:Mathsci, User:Pieter Kuiper's second comment, and User:Snowded. I also agree with most of what user:Jehochman has said, but I disagree with Jehochman 's last sentence (see below).

Awickert commented above "It is clear to me that Brews did not know that he was acting in violation of his topic ban (the namespace was wrong, but the comments were unrelated)", In my opinion the wording of the restriction is clear (and in Awickert's next paragraph Awickert makes it clear that he/she understands that there was and is such a restriction). Therefore on balance I think that User:Sandstein's initial actions were appropriate.

Once Brews ohare's had requested an unblock, I do think that it is unfortunate that there was no timely response by another administrator, if only to explain the Arbcomb ruling that binds administrators, and if they thought necessary to take the issue of User:Sandstein's actions up at AN or ANI and to inform Brews ohare that they had done so.

The reason for the implementation of sanctions is not to punish but to persuade editors to conform to the agreed consensus, (the consensus involves more than just the specific opinions of editors contribute to a conversational topic, weight must be given to Arbcomb decisions, policy pages and guidelines etc) and as far as I am aware there is no consensus against the Arbcom ruling as highlighted by SirFozzie below, so as I as an administrator think I am bound by Arbcomb decision and I would not intentionally revert an another administrators actions which were done under the auspices of that decision.

But in this case I think user:Trusilver acted in good faith and no good for the project would come from either unilateral removal of adminship or asking user:Trusilver to admit to a mistake. So I suggest that the ArbCom scolds user:Trusilver and leave it at that. Of course if user:Trusilver repeats the action that lead to him/her being brought here, then there should be no second chance.

-- PBS (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JzG

There are acceptable ways of contesting arbitration sanctions, wheel warring over blocks is not one of them. This entire episode appears to have been hijacked from the very outset by people who never accepted the original case findings. Some of these seem to be focusing on their personal belief that Brews is right and ignoring the fact that what he was sanctioned for was disruption, not being wrong. They also believe that because he is (in their opinion) right, he should be at liberty to continually test the limits of the remedies applied. No, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

This is not, and never has been, about right vs. wrong, it's a user conduct issue. The user appears to have had serious difficulty accepting the restrictions (because he knows he's "right") and has tested them from the outset resulting in more drama at every turn from those who also don't accept the outcome because he's "right". Incidentally, I have no opinion on whether he is right or wrong.

Why is this case being requested? In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except * with the written authorization of the Committee, or * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so, like SirFozzie said. Nothing to do with Brews being right or wrong or the restriction having the right kind of shrubbery, it's a bog standard "don't wheel-war over arbitration enforcement" issue. That principle is designed to reduce drama. What do we have when it's violated? Drama. And now the original parties who supported Brews because he's "right" are asserting on Jimbo's talk page that this is a constitutional crisis, that ArbCom are corrupt, that we are akin to the Inquisition, that we have a witch-hunt, lunacy, abuse of process (ironic given the out of process unblock that triggered this request), cronyism and so on. All the ingredients of calm discourse - not.

This is, in other words, an outstanding example of people completely missing the point and making a lot of noise about it. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Trusilver's comment on his talk page, I think he is right: there was ambiguity over the scope and enforcement provisions on Brews. That needs fixing. I would suggest that the comment now on user talk:Trusilver is a recognition of the problem with the unblock and places the unblock in a reasonable context as a defensible action in good faith. Importantly, I am convinced that Trusilver is extremely unlikely to repeat this, and has correctly identified a problem albeit his way of fixing it was wrong because of considerations wider than this specific case, something I think Trusilver now understands better than before. I think a sanction at this point would be punitive and a shame. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gwen Gale

I got an email from Brews ohare after the block and looked into it. I told Brews (in so many words) I thought he'd grazed up against the arbcom sanction and that it looked to me like he had been testing the edges, but that I was also willing to believe he'd made a good faith mistake. I told him the sanction was meant to be very broad, that he could likely be unblocked if he acknowledged such a mistake, that he now understood and wouldn't do that again (I also recall saying there would be no need for him to say he was sorry or anything like that). He answered (very politely) that he would rather sit out the block. Given the unblock request stayed open for six days out of the seven day block, I don't think the unblock, coming as it did on the last day before the block would have lifted itself, did much harm to the project. Nonetheless I do think the block was supported by both policy and the background on this (even if Brews didn't mean to do anything untowards), that Brews could have easily and quickly gotten himself unblocked, but that unblocking Brews without at least some kind of acknowledgement from Brews and checking with the blocking admin, was likewise unsupported. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Physchim62

Sandstein and Trusilver should be required to resolve their differences by the traditional method of "trouts at dawn". Really, it's sad to see that the least consequential disputes are the ones that create the most wikidrama. Obviously, Brews is not innocent in the drama, nor in its escalation: none of this would have happened if the Committee had passed the appropriate remedy to the Speed of light case, that is a one-year site ban for this persistently and deliberately disruptive editor. Physchim62 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Fences and windows

Taking an admin to ArbCom for unblocking half a day before the end of a week-long block looks like overkill to me. There isn't total agreement that the edits that lead to the block did firmly fall under the ArbCom restrictions on the blocked editor, and this case has the appearance of Sandstein taking revenge for another admin disagreeing with their actions. Arguing over the remaining six hours of the block is a waste of time, and discussion with Trusilver could have resolved this.

Comment by JohnBlackburne

This is to those who think that Trusilver's action was supported by consensus, or a majority view, or was unopposed. The reason why I suspect many editors (though I'm only speaking for myself) were not active on Brews' talk page opposing his unblock is we are tired of all this. Tired of the same editors disputing the same arbitration case again and again. Tired of being labelled corrupt[83], evil[84], or lectured on Victor Hugo[85] (though that is more comical than anything) for not supporting their special viewpoint, or just being forced to refute the same flawed arguments over and over again.

Most of us have better things to do then participate here. So having driven most sane editors away please don't think that means the few editors left on places like Brews talk page or even here are suddenly representative of the community. They are not.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hans Adler

This case demonstrates the fact that the prohibition against undoing AE actions is not entirely consistent with the general spirit of our community practices. WP:IAR is of course in tension with many of our other rules (that's its purpose), but exceptionally strongly with this one. For me the main issues here are:

  1. Balance of power between Arbcom and the admins. Arbcom is not always right. This was more obvious in 2008 and may become more obvious again.
  2. Fairness of process. For this community to function well, it is essential that respected members can occasionally break rules when they feel that the trade-off between their own loss of reputation and the expected benefits to the encyclopedia is worth it. Among other things, this can help to prevent gaming through overly literal and Draconian rule interpretations and abuse of the fact that every admin has a de facto veto right against not blocking a user.

I hope that Arbcom will find the right balance between the conflicting values. Arbcom decisions need to be binding under normal circumstances. But a single admin's interpretation of an Arbcom decision cannot currently be binding under controversial circumstances. This is a corollary of the fact that we are a wiki community. Perhaps you can change this – slowly and diplomatically. Hans Adler 08:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Guys... just a) make a motion saying that admins shouldn't undo AE blocks b) refuse to make an additional entry in Brew's log due to special circumstances unrelated to point a. These two things are not contradictory. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Profstandwellback

I comment as a user of WP who accidentally came across this dispute through interest in physics. I wish to point out that : 1) it is very difficult to judge what has happened since the evidence is hard to retrieve and is not summarised anywhere. I suggest there should be a format for a judicial review available in the talk page. 2) I notice that new comers to "speed of light" for example, are raising the same kind of questions about the article, and there is no way they will find a report of the dispute except for talk comments of the "oh no not this issue again" kind. Hence my suggestion above. 3) Surely the talk pages are for this kind of discussion about content, without threat of bans, surely that is what freedom of speech is all about, i.e the freedom to offend and have a debate in the open? 4 March 2010 (UTC) 4) Personally I find it not helpful as a teaching aid that articles jump in at the deep end without a more gentle introduction so that people who want to learn can find their current level of understanding and then read on. Profstandwellback (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Tzinkai's statement makes quite clear that this objection has little, if any, merit. Trusilver clearly acted in good faith, and within normal admin leeway.

Calling this use of reasonable discretion "obstruction" is not helpful, and is not something I would presume the ArbCom wishes to waste time on.

The other comments, however, seem to seek to reopen the entire Brews ohare case. I posit that the material at hand for so doing is quite absent - the only real issue presented is the case against Trusilver, and that, I submit, is grossly deficient to warrant any ArbCom actions. I would, moreover, urge ArbCom to state forthrightly that Sandstein, Brews, and Trusilver should earnestly avoid contact about this in the future, and that Sandstein should be highly careful not to appear to act in anything other than a properly dispassionate manner. And, as always, ot os clear that Draconian actions clearly do not serve WP in the long term. Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Stifle

The motion appears to me to be in the nature of making an example of Trusilver. May I refer you to the immortal quote "THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE" from Star Trek: First Contact — that was what came to mind when I read the motion. If that's what the ArbCom wants to do, it's not up to me to stop you, but may I suggest you consider a time-bounded desysop instead as an equally effective but less drastic method of getting the message across that AE blocks are not to be interfered with lightly? Stifle (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AGK

Desysopping Trusilver would be beyond harsh. I say that as an administrator who has previously worked in arbitration enforcement, and who knows the value of restricting the ease with which AE actions can be overturned. AGK 01:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by DesertAngel

I haven't edited in a long time, so I'm sorry and please delete this message if it isn't appropriate. And I'm sure I'm not really that unbiased because User:Trusilver is my father. But i have been following this whole thing and it makes less sense the more i read it. There have been a bunch of people that repeatedly say that the block which led to this whole thing was wrong, yet other than saying so, nobody is interested in looking at that block, but only on how the unblock was handled. I have thought from the very beginning that wikipedia was made on the idea of a loose rule system so that the rules don't get in the way of writing an encyclopedia. But what i have read the last couple days seems to be the exact opposite. If i were in charge, i think i would be a little bit more quick to forgive people that do the wrong things for the right kinds of reasons, or at least spend a little more time thinking about what was done wrong by the other guy. DesertAngel 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment by Martinp

Guys, given how the discussion is going, is it really appropriate to be dealing with this by summary motion? I'm not sure if norms for this have ever been established, but it strikes me that summary motion is most useful in situations where either i) there is urgency, or ii) the circumstances are not in dispute and there is no reason to waste time in running a full case. Now I don't want to wish ongoing painful arbitration on anyone, but here we have significant debate about whether elements of the backstory (and actions by others) are relevant or not, we have respected arbitrators reaching drastically different conclusions about the appropriate remedy with thoughtful commentary, and several arbitrators flipping back and forth between support and oppose of the summary motion. This seems to me like exactly the type of situation, if it needs to go to arbitration at all, that would benefit from a nuanced discussion on the workshop page, followed by a clear set of relevant principles, findings of fact, and remedies. At the moment, the whole mess sounds a bit like the plot of a Wild West movie (except I'm not sure anyone is wearing black hats), summary motion conclusion included. Martinp (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sententious comment by JohnWBarber

Where the circumstances can be confusing, doing something because it's the decent thing to do is an especially good defense. Something short of desysopping seems appropriate. We can never have enough decent admins. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ohms law

I don't particularly care about this case (I've never directly interacted with any of the primary parties, as far as I know), but as a general comment it would be nice if the committee were to behave consistently when it comes to matters such as those brought up by this case. There is currently a request for clarification, below, which ultimately derives from the committee's lack of consistency, especially in regards to IAR. Personally, if something that is not patently ridiculous in the first place ends up here in front of the commitee due to someone citing "IAR", that would almost automatically cause me to think that the person citing IAR should be disciplined in some manner. I see this case as a direct result of earlier enabling behavior from the committee, which it still refuses to effectively address.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cenarium

I think the committee should not desysop Trusilver, only admonish him. I agree that the motivations in doing this seems to be the desire to make an example (and maybe to reinforce the authority of the committee), but this is against the spirit of Wikipedia. The unblock was in good faith, and Trusilver's work as admin besides this is good and not in question. Plus, the situation is disputed, it's even disputed if it was valid as arbitration enforcement (you just need to say it's AE, then it's AE ? surely not... in any case it should be properly examined), how can arbitrators think they can make an informed decision through a quick motion ? Cenarium (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Could a clerk please notify Tznkai of this RFAR, both by message to his talk page and via email? Thanks. Risker (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request from uninvolved editor: while I appreciate that one of the parties may find a need to ignore the word limit up to a point, could a clerk please address those other editors who have unreasonably gone over it? Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am recused. AGK 17:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/8)

  • Awaiting statement from Trusilver. I don't think an entire case is necessary here; anything that we need to do we should be able to do by motion. Steve Smith (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbolic or not, there is a line at the top of AE that states: In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except * with the written authorization of the Committee, or * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. In light of this, I find the argument of IAR uncompelling, to say the least. IAR is only supposed to be used when a rule is stupid and there's consensus that it is not needed, IAR is to prevent drama, not to cause it. Trusilver not only did not seek either , he was given multiple chances to correct the action and did not, which I find intensely disappointing. I agree that a full case is unnecessary, and have ideas for motions. SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, I have now posted a motion below on this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am certainly not going to make gestures in the direction of restoring a handful of hours from a week-long block as this would be an exercise in futility. That being said, the unblock by Truesilver is a patently ridiculous and political invocation of IAR. Gathering support and barnstars does not improve the encyclopedia, nor does unilaterally undoing a block hours before it expires "on principle". Administrative tools are emphatically not to be used to make political statements — there are plenty of mechanisms to appeal the substance or propriety of an enforcement action but IAR is not one of them. — Coren (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Brews, I did not address the substance of your block for the simple reason that it is not material to this request, which is about how the unblock came about. — Coren (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, Sandstein's block of Brews Ohare is based on the extension of sanctions carried out by Tznkai in November 2009, reviewed in December 2009, and which was scheduled to be reviewed again four weeks from December 10, 2009 (or approximately Jan 8/2010). I do not see any documentation that the planned January 2010 review took place or (if it did) what its result was. I'd like to hear from Tznkai about this, if he is available, and will ask a clerk to contact him. While I don't want to presuppose the situation, it looks right now as though we have a good-faith block made on the basis of an extension to an Arbcom remedy that was not intended to be long-term, putting everyone in something of an awkward situation. Risker (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think restoring the block would accomplish anything at this time, but this is not an indication that Sandstein's block was improper in any way. Trusilver's explanation leaves a lot to be desired; Wikipedia doesn't run by what individual's think is "the right thing to do" and I'm not convinced IAR applies since I fail to see how the project was improved by this political maneuvering. Trusilver's reluctance to remedy the situation despite multiple chances is truly disappointing. Brews is certainly aware by now how to contest any sanction, restriction or block considering how frequently he's done so (or had it done for him). I also believe that this can be handled by simple motion; the facts seem self-evident. Shell babelfish 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brews, just in case you missed it, please see the large chunk of bold text SirFozzie posted; that should clear up your confusion about why Trusilver's actions were improper. Shell babelfish 20:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be clear at this point that those who undue AE actions unilaterally, without our authorization or a community consensus, do so at their own peril. I am not sure how much more clear we can make it. I agree this can be handled by motion. KnightLago (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In theory, every Wikipedia editor got principles. Unilateral and decisive actions based on personal principles have never been nor should become a Wikipedia principle. We wouldn't have this case presented here if we could have acted in a different way; that is to consult first and act accordingly. You disagree with an AE block? Don't unblock. There are many other ways to contest it apart from unblocking with the justification that "I got my principles guiding me." IAR is tricky. The blocking admin could also claim they are applying it regardless of the AE discussions. For the rest, I am in total agreement with SirFozzie, Coren, Shell and KnightLago. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have been following this while I was inactive, and various things went wrong here. In my view, the system needs fixing here, and individuals should be severely admonished rather than desysopped. The message is clear already. Repetition would obviously lead to desysopping, and doing an unblock following use of the template recently created would almost never be justified (even if the template has been misused, that needs discussion first). To counter this, though, admins who carry out AE actions need to expect to face admonishment and sanction as well, if they consistently show poor judgment. Carrying out AE actions is not carte blanche to carry out novel or poor or excessive interpretations of remedies (which does happen, though that is not a comment on the blocks in this case). Contested AE actions should be appealed to the admin involved in the first instance, then possibly to a suitable community venue (this is unclear, possibly notification in a community venue is sufficient, along with notice on whether the sanctioned editor contests the action - this should always be the first step - finding out if the sanctioned editor contests the sanction), and then to ArbCom via a request for clarification (or, if the appellant is indefinitely blocked as a follow-up to an earlier AE action and no-one is prepared to unblock, via an appeal by the blocked editor to the ban appeals committee). It is possible for such appeals to be summarily rejected at all levels, if the appeal is frivolous or patently unsound, but consideration should be given to reducing block lengths if the sanction is not contested, but the block length is. One other thing - involved or uninvolved parties appealing on behalf of others is fraught with difficulties - it is much simpler to let the editor sanctioned do the appealing themselves, and then ask others to speak for them if needed. Ditto for admins pre-emptively taking an action to a noticeboard for wider discussion (which tends to prejudice the discussion in favour of the admin) - wider discussion should be initiated by or at the request of the sanctioned editor, and not before (earlier discussion in the case of a contested block should be between two users only, on one of the two user talk pages only), and only then should others comment. i.e. Leave the admin and the sanctioned editor to discuss before others join the discussion. Finally, something needs to be done about block lengths so short that they expire before any discussions on the appropriateness of the block reach consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Brew Ohare's comment here: the correct action to take if an AE action seems unclear to you is to first discuss with the admin taking the AE action, and then (if you still disagree) to appeal it or ask for clarification. Did you take any of those steps? Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Trusilver/Brews ohare unblock Motion

The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

(There being 16 arbitrators, one of whom is inactive, the majority is 8) ~ Amory (utc) 21:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Updated by Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC), and again by Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted ~ Amory (utc) 03:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator voting and discussion
Support
  1. I would like to note that while we give administrators a good amount of leeway on how they enforce ArbCom's remedies at AE and elsewhere, they are still required to discuss their actions as needed, and if consensus is against the action taken, gracefully consent to having the action overturned. But that consensus needs to be that of the community, not that of highly charged partisans on a user's talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the archived AN thread, the problem of "highly charged partisans" is not removed simply changing the venue to WP:AN instead of the user's talk page. The partisans (on both sides, usually those involved with the original case) simply switch pages and continue to follow the issue, adding more heat than light. What is needed is to allow dialogue between the sanctioned editor and the admin without others adding noise that (with the best of intentions) only confuses the issue. Leave the sanctioned editor and the admin to talk it out and only then go to AN and exclude those who participated in the original case from commenting. If no-one else comments (quite likely, as not many are really that interested in arbitration cases) then it comes back to us for clarification. Or simply cut out the WP:AN step altogether. The other problem with that archived AN thread is that it was started by someone who was not the sanctioned editor or the sanctioning admin. There needed to be a clear statement by Brews Ohare on his talk page that he wanted to appeal the AE action, and Sandstein should then have transferred that appeal plus his statement to the appeal venue (where-ever that should be). To allow anyone to start such a thread on WP:AN is at the root of the problem. Starting such appeals should be strictly limited to the editor who was sanctioned, or the admin who carried out the sanction (on request of a blocked editor). Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In particular, it needs to be noted that a good faith enforcement block needs an active consensus to undo. To do otherwise both diminishes the ability of remedies to be enforced and encourages an attitude of warring between disagreeing administrators which, in the best case, is begging for a wheel war. If one feels strongly that an enforcement action was unfair, in bad faith, or simply erroneous and it was not possible to discuss the matter satisfactorily with the enforcing admin, then the proper action is to either (a) raise community consensus in a suitable venue or (b) raise the matter directly with the committee. Simply reversing the action unilaterally is never acceptable. — Coren (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that this principle might not be entirely clear, so I will restate it: Unilaterally undoing an enforcement action is never appropriate. Even if, in your opinion, it was a "bad block". — Coren (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rules either mean something or they do not; I cast my vote for the former approach. Steve Smith (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is admirable (really): refusing to adhere to the rules when they go against one's conscience is noble and commendable. My vote at this point is not punishment, but rather an acknowledgement that Trusilver's scruples are not consistent with the expectations of an administrator, and that he is too principled to suppress his principles for the sake of retaining the bit. Steve Smith (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per SirFozzie, who sums up my thoughts nicely. KnightLago (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. While there is always room for good faith disagreements about enforcement, concerns should be handled with discussion, not unilateral unblocks or other sanction removal. Shell babelfish 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per the above, and also noting that the recent comments made by Trusilver (see the Meta comments section below) are not helping him in the slightest; incivility aside, they're not convincing me that this is going to be a one-time incident that won't be repeated again, despite the apparent commitment he's made. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment: As the timestamps should indicate, I made this vote prior to Sandstein's threat to boycott AE if this motion does not pass. I am continuing to support this not because I am responding to Sandstein's threat, but because I believe this the proper course of action. I find the threat of boycotting to be highly disruptive, and frankly immature. On a project such as this, not everyone is going to agree with you all the time. Insisting that you're not going to help any more when that happens does not help the project in any way, and harms your own credibility besides. And as with everything, people make mistakes. It's far more useful to be willing to listen to valid criticism should someone think you've made a mistake, and gracefully admit your error should they correct. Even if you do not believe your action was incorrect, it's the "wiki way" to step aside and permit an active community consensus to determine what should happen. This is the purpose of these three motions - to enforce and clarify that. The Committee has no intention of passing any motion that allows administrators to undo AE actions at will, nor is there any way any of these motions could be interpreted in that way. The 2008 motion permits any form of sanction, up to desysopping; it doesn't say that is the mandated course. If Trusilver should be admonished and not desysopped, that is in no way condoning the actions he took here. Should that happen, and Sandstein and others still choose not to participate in AE, that is their choice, and their (generally very exceptional) work will be missed; however, actively encouraging others to do the same will be seen as intentionally disruptive and will not be taken lightly by the Committee. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What Coren said. First Choice. - Mailer Diablo 21:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a difficult vote. I completely agree with Newyorkbrad below... while Trusilver's unblock was based on a personal principle, the rest of Trusilver's administrative actions have never been questionable. I could have just stopped at this point and opposed this motion. However, the problem is that their first meta comment below shows that they agree somehow that they wouldn't do it again while their second one makes me believe that they are like "I'll do it again, so what?!". That is inconsistent and unclear. Therefore I am supporting this motion unless Trusilver clarifies his position in a different way. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick change of heart. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am wavering yet again. I cannot support this unless we pass a second motion to clarify that AE admining is not a license to kill. There must be an established review mechanism, and we should say something about best practices. Cool Hand Luke 18:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per above. Kirill [talk] [prof] 06:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. Per my colleagues.  Roger Davies talk 09:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. First and only choice, per above. RlevseTalk 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Trusilver's unblock arguably violated our resolution of December 2008, and despite some mitigating factors as discussed in the editor comments above, an admonition against his doing this sort of thing again might be in order so as to preserve good order in the arbitration enforcement process (AE being an important part of the arbitration process as well as an important but entirely thankless and historically burnout-prone role for administrators). Under all the circumstances, however, I feel that desysopping Trusilver for what appears to have been a completely isolated incident is a seriously excessive reaction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I reaffirm my opposition to this disproportionate action and endorse the substance of Risker's analysis below. This should not be taken as agreement with all of Trusilver's comments surrounding the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fair enough. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There are a lot of issues going on here which mitigate against desysopping Trusilver. First is that it is pretty clear that the edits that resulted in the block were not physics-related, but straightforward (and fairly sound) editorial advice, so I do not see them as violating the topic ban that was instituted by the Arbitration Committee. They arguably violate the sanctions superimposed on Brews by Tznkai; however, I do not believe that sanctions based on such superimposed sanctions (done by an individual administrator rather than the full Arbitration Committee) are protected in the same way that the base decision is protected. That is why we can amend decisions, to broaden or limit the original sanction; an administrator could impose entirely different terms than the original decision without anyone ascertaining whether it was the intention of the Arbitration Committee to head in that direction. Next is the length of the block; it is the maximum allowable under the Arbcom decision. I am not persuaded that such a lengthy block was appropriate for this transgression. There was a teachable moment there, where Sandstein could have identified what reassurances he needed to lift the block, but I cannot see any indication that Sandstein gave any consideration to conditions under which he would change the block length should Brews indicate an understanding of his limitations and an agreement to follow them more closely. Brews is not banned from the project as a whole, but limited areas of the project; this is intentional on the part of the Arbitration Committee, and there is some expectation that efforts will be made to resocialise him to the project. This is not always an easy process, but it is a valuable one; I say this despite some failed efforts on my own part, because when it works it is very rewarding to the project as well as the editors involved.

    Also of note is the fact that the effort to appeal the decision on ANI, while probably appropriate, was stymied by an editor who closed the discussion. I don't fault Durova for this, because she is correct that the Arbitration Committee's instructions on how to appeal an arbitration enforcement decision to the community is not clearly spelled out. Thus, those seeking review of the block took it to the largest community noticeboard, logically thinking that was where they were most likely to get community feedback; on the other hand, those who frequent ANI also logically thought the discussion, since it related to arbitration enforcement, did not belong there. I think it appropriate to have some discussion with the community about where future such discussions should take place, because there are definitely not enough eyes on WP:AE to hold it there; perhaps Administrator noticeboard would be best.

    All in all, what I see is a too-long block from an administrator who would not lay out conditions under which he would consider unblock, a truncated attempt to have community review of the block, and the main reason being given to support the block being that it was made as an arbitration enforcement so is sacrosanct. I don't see this as having reached the desysop point; I could probably agree with a formal warning, but at this point I think Trusilver has got the message. I don't think it is beneficial to the community as a whole, or the Arbitration Committee as an extension, to instantly go to the highest level of possible sanction whenever someone violates a policy, particularly when the exact nature of the violation rests on somewhat shaky grounds. Risker (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  4. Risker and JzG (who has been in dialog with Trusilver with Coren) convince me to oppose. I will support a warning. I understand that some arbitrators want this closed, but I hope it remains open a little longer so that we can post post (1) an alternative warning motion, and (2) a motion pledging to tackle the ambiguity of the AE process, if not clarifying the process once and for all. Cool Hand Luke 19:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Largely per Risker and Brad. Also share Cool Hand Luke's unease about the second block carried out while this request was open. Admins are expected to realise that while their actions are under ArbCom scrutiny (even if support seems obvious), they should temporarily abstain from use of the tools in the disputed area. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
I don't think these sanction events were best practices for AE; I'm especially uneasy about the repeated block while this case was pending. I would support only if the AE practices are addressed and rationalized. I will not stand in the way of passage, however. Cool Hand Luke 02:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, move to support. I would like to address AE someday, but this case is too clear-cut to be worth holding. Cool Hand Luke 02:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1.1. Trusilver admonished and warned

The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, and no full community discussion had demonstrated an active consensus against the block. Unblock under these circumstances has been established to be inappropriate. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation, especially because Trusilver failed to remedy the perceived problem by any less disruptive means.

Admins who reverse AE actions in these circumstances are "subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." Given the previous ambiguity of appealing an AE action, Trusilver is admonished for this incident and warned against inappropriate reversals of administrative actions.

Arbitrator voting and discussion
Support
  1. Proposed as alternative. I believe that this is the appropriate level, and the sanction is at our discretion. User surely understands that a swift desysop will follow similar antics in the future, and I doubt there will be a repetition. Cool Hand Luke 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandstein, the 2008 motion requires "subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." The proposed remedy is not an empty promise, and it's not something we would likely grant in the future given that the process is now clarified. Cool Hand Luke 15:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice, if 1 fails. Steve Smith (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This sends the right message, and future cases will have more explicit templates and warnings than this 2-year-old prohibition, which I suspect may have been bent in the past, though that is speculation for now. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandstein, if your original action had been appealed to ArbCom, and we had overturned it or reduced the block length, would your reaction be the same as it is now? Please remember that overturning of an AE action is not criticism of the admin who carried out the enforcement. Read what Newyorkbrad said: "occasionally, an AE action may be overturned; this is not to be read as a denigration of the administrators' overall work on AE, as sometimes there can be reasonable disagreement on whether a violation has occurred or what the sanction should be". By the same reasoning, not desysopping Trusilver (though at the moment the desysopping is still passing) should not be seen as a criticism of your actions or a green light for people to overturn AE actions taken by you or others. I am puzzled though as to why you are making desysopping a condition for your continued AE work and why you are stating an intent to disrupt the AE process with a boycott. Are you saying you put your opinion in this matter ahead of ArbCom opinion and authority in this matter? If so, that is inconsistent with expecting people to respect AE actions, which invoke the same authority you are protesting against. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I remain unconvinced that this is entirely sufficient, given that the ability of Arbitration to be the final stop in disputes is compromised by allowing enforcement action to be unilaterally weakened. That being said, while ignorance is no defense, there was sufficient confusion about appealing the original block that a strong warning may suffice this time. — Coren (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This situation was fraught with multiple attempts to resolve short of Trusilver's unblock: an attempt to involve one or more arbitrators, discussion with the blocking admin, unblock template on the user's talk page, and a thread at ANI; none of them were addressed optimally. I do not believe Trusilver's unblock was optimal either, but his action does not warrant desysopping. I believe that level of sanction is best reserved for situations where an administrator acted on his own initiative without any attempt to discuss. Risker (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice.  Roger Davies talk 06:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although this is not worded exactly as I might have phrase it, it is a more proportionate response to this situation than the original proposal and I will support it. See also my comments on the other motions 1 and 2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Second choice. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice. KnightLago (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Largely per SirFozzie. Arbitration on Wikipedia is the final stop in disputes, and should not be the cause of continued drama after the dispute has been resolved. The same goes for IAR - if an IAR action is going to cause undue amounts of drama, then it's probably not the right way to go. While I can concede that some other issues in this situation were less than ideal, it does not absolve Trusilver of the mistakes made here. Once the earlier motion was posted, I found Trusilver's response to be significantly lacking in what would be the appropriate level of understanding here, and did not get the impression that there would not be a repeat. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Observers please take note of my extended comments above. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. How many times are we going to say, in this case about AE enforcement and admin wheel warring, "we really mean it" and not do anything? This issue has come up too many times and there are still too many that ignore policy. This was a deliberate revert with no attempt whatsoever at discussion, nor was it a misunderstanding.RlevseTalk 15:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I cannot support, as Trusilver was given multiple opportunities to fix the error he has made, and I feel that his response did not rise to the level of understanding the problems he created. However, I will abstain, as I do understand the desire to go for something less then a full de-adminning. SirFozzie (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per SirFozzie. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per SirFozzie. There were many opportunities to resolve the issue and Trusilver chose not only to ignore them but to make some rather bold statements that indicate some rather poor judgement. However since there is some dissension about a desysop being appropriate, I won't object to an admonishment. Shell babelfish 15:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. ArbCom Enforcement Motion

The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or
(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

Enacted ~ Amory (utc) 03:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator voting and discussion
Support
  1. I sense a strong feeling within the community (and indeed, within ArbCom itself) that the AE area is problematic. We've had one Request for comment in the area already. We have a limited amount of administrators willing to work in the area currently, and having been involved in that area myself frequently, I know personally how high the level of burnout is. I think this is one of the areas that is perennially crying out for more administrators to work in the area. I tried to figure a way to shoehorn that call for more administrators to step up into the motion, but couldn't figure it out. Consider it a personal appeal, then :). I also tried to clarify the process so we do not have the issues we had in this case, where Brews ohare was materially disadvantaged when a well-meaning user, not knowing the proper procedure for handling WP:AE actions, closed the ANI discussion. (If someone has a better place for the discussions to happen then AN/ANI, where we can get others to look at it, I'm all ears!).. I apologize for the length of my vote, but I wanted to say a couple things here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cool Hand Luke 17:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steve Smith (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Though I think an important caveat is that the sanction must be contested by the editor sanctioned. Too often there is an assumption on the part of the blocking or sanctioning admin that others will inevitably contest the action and the admin then takes the matter to a noticeboard to have their say first, and ask for the matter to be approved. Either that, or those opposing the action drag the admin to a noticeboard and try and have their say first. The matter should be discussed first between the admin and the sanctioned editor - and others should stay out of that discussion. Only if that fails, should the discussion be opened up to wider comment, and the positions of both the sanctioned editor and the admin should be presented together simultaneously (this will be possible because they will have discussed on a user talk page first), and only then should others comment (for a minimum period of time to allow a wide range of editors to see the discussion), and those participating in the discussion should be honest about how involved they are, and those participating in the discussion should call out those people who fail to disclose prior involvement in the contested area. Finally, the person closing the discussion should also state clearly how involved they are (ideally not at all). At that point, there will be a discussion to refer to if further appeal is made. So to the above, I would add that discussion (as always) should take place between the sanctioned editor and the admin carrying out the action. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm still rather puzzled by the claims that the previous rule was vague, but if making things more explicit is what is needed, then I obviously have no objections. — Coren (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Assuming this passes, it should be copied to both WP:AE and WP:AC/PR. Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9.  Roger Davies talk 06:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I will support this, but I believe the Committee should also note its great appreciation toward the handful of administrators who spend substantial time and effort dealing with Arbitration Enforcement requests, which is one of the most contentious and literally thankless administrator tasks on the entire project. I suggest that a sentence to this effect be added to the motion. I also note that occasionally, an AE action may be overturned; this is not to be read as a denigration of the administrators' overall work on AE, as sometimes there can be reasonable disagreement on whether a violation has occurred or what the sanction should be (just as the arbitrators ourselves often have split votes on cases and motions). Finally, I would ask that the procedural clarification contained in this motion be noted in the applicable arbitration procedure pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mailer Diablo 12:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Shell babelfish 15:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Would have preferred getting community input before doing this, but still support in the interim. KnightLago (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Additional Comments

Being just a couple votes short of a de-sysopping, now is a good time to point out that Trusilver may be able to stop this right here by clearly stating that they will never do such a thing again. It is not burdensome to reaffirm existing obligations. Jehochman Brrr 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I reaffirm my position that Sandstein's original block was incorrect and had nothing whatsoever to do with the sanction as he claimed in his block message, I have no problem with that. I wouldn't do it again within the stated parameters and with the understanding that arbcom sanction blocks are clearly labled as such beforehand. Trusilver 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I didn't know that this was an arbitration enforcement block, or else I wouldn't have removed it without discussion and consensus" may be a valid defense. "Ignore all rules" definitely isn't. Do you now agree with those two statements? Jehochman Brrr 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nice little arbcom sycophant's comments below notwithstanding. I'm going to have to say no. If the block was labeled with the new template, I wouldn't have unblocked on the basis of a more clear and accessible set of directions for appealing the block. But I'm not about to lie about it. If I had it to do all over again, and all circumstances remain as they were, I wouldn't have done anything differently. A bad block remains a bad block even if the overzealous blocking admin tries to pretend that it somehow applied to an existing sanction. I have nothing further to add. Trusilver 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically in response to FayssaIF, I don't know if this is exactly the clarification you are looking for, but I think I have answered your question here in my response to JzG. Trusilver 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal attack. I think it's inappropriate and especially imprudent under these circumstances. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More inappropriate than Sandstein's passive-aggressive covert incivility? Like where he suggests it's "strange" that I honor[89] an editor who has contributed more content to the encyclopedia than both him and I will ever hope to? I don't think so, but I'm sure your mileage may vary. Trusilver 06:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I categorically believe that it's much more uncivil to refer to a user as "nice little arbcom sycophant" than question an editor's comment as "strange." Not even close. Cool Hand Luke 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerks, feel free to remove this section if it's inappropriate, but I would like to point out that the AE block was clearly labeled as such (block log, talk page, Trusilver's talk). Also, some of Trusilver's recent comments in this matter ([90], [91], [92]) make me doubt the sincerity of any commitment that he might want to make at this juncture. (This is strange also).  Sandstein  17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the last part of your comment, I don't think that is strange; unless you hope to deny that ChildofMidnight has showed no promise whatsoever in his content contributions, it is unhelpful to import that dispute/case here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awarding barnstars to someone who just earned a unanimous 1-year ban seems to be a bit of a slap in the face, and referring to ArbCom as "these assholes" certainly doesn't help much either. Full disclosure; I've had an unpleasant run-in with this admin in the past, so while others may feel my opinion is biased, IMO this is a pattern of some very unsound judgment. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Hand Luke above asks for a second motion to clarify how wider community AE review should happen... Responding to that, I think that any of the AE, the AE talk page, AN, or ANI would work - and have been used in the past. Do we need to add instruction creep, specifying one and making it the one true place? None of those is a wrong venue per se. The problem in this case was that no venue was used or attempted. Perhaps the problem here is real, but it seems not to me. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ANI was attempted, right here, but it was shut down in good faith because there is no process suggesting that AE can be reviewed anywhere.
With that in mind, do you agree that there should be a process for review? Cool Hand Luke 20:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent future confusion, as in Durova's closing of the ANI thread, I have attempted to describe what appears to be the review process implicitly recommended by this Committee in its 2008 motion at WP:AEBLOCK. That description has not been controversial for the last few days.  Sandstein  20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my comment - Truesilver didn't attempt participation in that or another discussion. Separately, I think Durova's close there was a mistake (not supported by arbitration sanction policy or precedent, and several such discussions have happened before). But yes, if there's confusion about the process, we should make it clear. I wasn't aware that there was confusion, and had I spotted that one would have objected. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original block was wrong. There is no doubt whatsoever about that fact. And the mess that we have here arose because of the sheer chutzpah of those who decided to completely brush that fact under the carpet and go on the warpath against Trusilver for having undone the evil. As usual, many jumped on the 'me too' bandwagon. But I knew all along that sooner or later one arbitrator would break the chain reaction, and then others would start to think. The truth is now beginning to come out in the wash. Risker has summed the situation up nicely. He maybe hasn't put it in as strong words as I would have done, but he's pretty well covered all the important facts. Risker uses the term 'shaky ground'. Very nice terminology indeed, but somewhat of an understatement. And while all this is going on, we once again witness the shameful spectacle of approaches being made to Trusilver to apologize, grovel, and confess to a crime which he did not commit. Cool Hand Luke is now talking about the very point which I raised earlier on in this affair. That is the need for a judicial review process to determine if administrators have correctly interpreted the ARBCOM sanctions, or indeed if the likes of Tznkai was intra vires in extending the ARBCOM sanctions. It is intolerable to have a situation in which one administrator can rush in and block an editor on the basis of a totally false interpretation of sanctions, and against the expressed consensus of all commenting editors. It is even worse when it is done on the back of extended sanctions which are totally ultra vires. And it is even worse still when a law exists which says that nobody is allowed to undo the evil once it's done. And it is even worse still when a situation arises that when somebody does undo the evil that he should be punished, while a blind eye is turned in relation to the originating evil. This whole situation is a total and utter monumental disgrace. Congratulations to Risker for seeing right through it.David Tombe (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She. And please don't put words in my mouth: Tznkai acted within the terms of the original decision in superimposing additional sanctions, which could have been (and still can be) appealed to the Arbitration Committee or (once everyone is on the same page) the community. "Shaky ground" refers to whether a sanction mainly based on an administrator-imposed sanction that is superimposed on an Arbitration Committee sanction is protected in the same way that a sanction strictly based on the original Arbitration Committee sanction is. It is a discussion that has not yet taken place. I have not said that Sandstein's original block was wrong, although I do believe it was too long. Risker (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK Risker, So bearing in mind the first paragraph in your 'oppose' statement', what length of block would have been appropriate in your opinion? Also Risker, your sentence

"particularly when the exact nature of the violation rests on somewhat shaky grounds"

does not seem to be in line with how you have now tried to wriggle out of it above. I may be wrong on that point, but that's how I interpret it. David Tombe (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one very simple thing for all of us in this project to understand. If someone does something wrong (AE blocking when it is not called for) people contesting the block can easily approach ArbCom for a clarification (i.e. I don't believe that the block was right, could you please clarify to us your view on it?). That would have taken 24h to sort out. Blocking/unblocking is not right as two wrongs don't make a right. And insisting on IAR as a basis in such cases makes it more baseless. Honestly, all administrators need to know all that starting from the day they nominate themselves to RfA. And obviously, I'd not have to be uncivil and call people names as it happened in this case. So instead of doing something the easy way, we do it recklessly.
Now, and after all this mess, we've just arrived to that point; which is asking. Risker may have a different answer but if I were an admin on AE I'd first check the user's intention by asking him on his talk page and decide based on that. It could be no sanction, a warning or a 48h. In this case I could have opted for a warning. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, Thanks for your reply. For your information, ARBCOM's opinion was indeed solicited. There are attempts being made here to make out that nobody solicited ARBCOM's opinion, but I can assure you that ARBCOM were sent for. SirFozzie arrived on scene, spoke in riddles, and departed again stating that the matter should be discussed extensively. Durova then closed the discussion thread. Plenty of discussion took place about this matter. Trusilver discussed the matter at length with Sandstein. Many editors discussed it at the original AE and the consensus was unanimously that Brews had not violated his sanctions. So let's end this canard that Trusilver didn't discuss the matter or that nobody asked ARBCOM to intervene or that no discussions took place. It's been debunked. David Tombe (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to miss the point. We have a simple principle here; do not undo blocks that were handed down to enforce an ArbCom decision/restriction. WP:IAR is like the One Ring, a powerful tool but easy to misuse. In this case, the consensus is fairly clear that it was misused, irregardless of Sandstein's original block.
Speaking of consensus, this is at 9-3-1 now, so isn't that a wrap-up? Tarc (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus among Arbitrators is not the same as consensus in the wider Wiki-Community. I'm quite sure that desysopping Trusilver would be regarded to be too harsh by most Wikipedians. Another thing is that while you can have indepth ArbCom discusions with the active participation of the Arbitrators on extremely minute procedural matters, addressing the core issue in the appeal of Brews launched by Likebox, did not lead to any useful discussions on the far more relevant issue (directly related to actually editing Wikipedia articles). Count Iblis (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Each action by ArbCom doesn't require community consensus, that would somewhat defeat the point of having them at all. Thus, an absolute majority of the committee is sufficient to enact a decision. I'd also point out that you can't speak for 'most Wikipedians'. I have no opinion on the actual issue. Ale_Jrbtalk 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikilawyering, wikilawyering consists, among other things, of these three sorts of action:
  1. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
  2. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
  3. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

My reading of the arguments here is that the great majority of administrators involved are doing some or all of these things considered inimical to WP. They absolutely refuse to consider the purpose of WP or how actions affect WP. Their actions so far, do far more damage than any imagined weakening of the enforcement ability of admins, which actually is not at risk at all, unless their absurd justification of arbitrary actions leads ultimately to a complete rebellion: either withdrawal of many useful good-faith editors and abandonment of WP to such gamesters, or to an ultimate emasculation of the class of administrators itself. Brews ohare (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brews, Risker says
the edits that resulted in the block were not physics-related, but straightforward (and fairly sound) editorial advice
Yet further down, he says that the block was not wrong. It sounds to me that there must be some very strange rules on wikipedia if "sound editorial advice" can warrant a block. Something has gone off the rails somewhere. And by the way, I don't recall Trusilver at any point claiming that he invoked WP:IAR. People keep saying that he invoked WP:IAR, but I have seen no evidence of it. I thought that he just unblocked you because he thought that the block was wrong. It's interesting reading above and seeing how they can all see that Durova shouldn't have closed the discussion thread, yet they also immediately claim that they don't believe that she acted wrongly in doing so. They are very quick to brush wrongdoings by Durova under the carpet, yet punish Trusilver for right-doings. And it's interesting to see how Cool Hand Luke has clearly seen the rights and wrongs of this issue, yet he is wavering about what to actually do about it. Should he vote to spare Trusilver, now that he understands the underlying truth behind the whole situation? Or should he just follow his colleagues and vote to desysop Trusilver? It's a tough decision, isn't it? And notice how Tarc has brought us all a new meaning to the word 'consensus'. This new meaning is,
Consensus is when ARBCOM vote to overrule community consensus
Even Mark Twain couldn't have thought that one up. David Tombe (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enough already with the conspiracy theories and needless elongation of discussions. Could somebody tell me why Brews ohare and David Tombe aren't indef blocked by now? Haven't we had more than enough of this stuff? ArbCom, there was a case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light where you ought to have banned the both of them. The restrictions you placed have been tested, gamed, wikilawyered, and gamed some more. The total productive contributions of these two accounts is insufficient to justify all the community time and adverse consequences that they've created. Please take a lesson from this. Jehochman Talk 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why then always make trouble about nothing? Brews has been contributing a lot to geology articles recently, just ask Awickert about that. The aggressors in this conflict clearly are Headbomb and Finell. They were edit warring in a really stupid way about the infraparticle article (not that this article now contains a section that Headbomb and Finell wanted to remove, so clearly any arguments they had with it have since evaporated). Brews made a comment about the edit war on the 3RR noticeboard which would have been competely innocent had it not been for some restrictions on his namespace activities (assuming that these restrictions were still in force, there is some doubt about that).
In that edit war, fire from Headbomb was the cause of three civilian casualties. First was an attack on Likebox who was initially blocked for three months. This was soon reversed. An Admin warned Headbomb on his talk page to stop behaving in this nonsensical way (wrongful accusations against Likebox for deliberately using false references). Second was an attack on Brews. Headbomb found it necessary to point his gun at Brews after seeing his comment on the 3RR noticeboard and ask for a block on AE noticeboard. Brews was taken prisoner and moved inside AE territory. That then ultimately led to Trusilver's attempt to rescue Brews. But that required Trusilver to enter the minefield surrounding AE territory. Unfortunately, when Brews and Trusilver were about to leave AE territory, Trusilver stepped on a mine. Count Iblis (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? This isn't at battlefield! It's Wikipedia. Arbitrators, for the love of spaghetti and meatballs, would you please put an end to this nonsense. A case was brought, make a decision. We brought you Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light because the community could not resolve things (in large part due to the mutual enabling of bad behavior evident on this very thread). We are still unable to resolve these problems without your help. Jehochman Talk 14:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be a battlefield, but the whole history of this particular case clearly is the result of a needless battle. I suggest we take the perspective that Wikipedia is about editing articles and that Adminstrative decisions such as ArbCom is contemplating here should primarily focus on what is best from this perspective.
Then desysopping Trusilver, who is an excellent Admin against whom there are absolutely no complaints of any problematic use of tools as far as actually editing articles is concerned (e.g. in case of William Connolley such complaints did exist, I'm not saying I agree with those complaints), would be a very bad thing. You would scarifice him for the sake of some unclear rule in a case where that rule was used as a tactical tool by Headbomb when he was edit warring to remove a paragraph of an article (and that paragraph is still in that article now, so it really was a pointless edit war). Can it get any crazier than that? Count Iblis (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case is not about whether the block was correct in the first place; that is essentially irrelevant, and you deliberately and consistently ignoring this key point could be seen as becoming somewhat disruptive, imo. I also think your rendition of the events as a battle scene is particularly worrying, and it suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing what Wikipedia should ideally be with what it sometimes is. The fact that ArbCom choses to rule on what is essentially a sort of court martial case is troubling. Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm addressing this the same way I addressed a similar argument on my talk page [93]. Everyone is getting a little more heated than is necessary. Arbcom is discussing a change in enforcement policies, it's not as extensive as I would like, but it's still a step forward. That's all I really wanted out of this, everything else is secondary. So please... chill. Trusilver 01:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Jehochman: Comments like yours here are uncalled for. At best they amount to a pejorative and inaccurate version of a long and nasty series of events, edited to include only your biased conclusions. At worst, they are simply tabloid mud slinging directed at those you don't like. In either case your remarks are neither factual, nor balanced, nor appropriate. For a person supposedly assuming some responsibility, tut tut!! Brews ohare (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]