< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Abd and JzG Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:24, 2 May 2009 editAbd (talk \| contribs)14,259 editsm Undid revision 287538613 by Abd (talk)oops! wrong section!← Previous edit		Revision as of 13:46, 3 May 2009 edit undoCoppertwig (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,272 edits →Proposed principles: Fixing spelling of "Lyriker" (was spelled "Lyricker", no contribs for such an account) in Abd's comment.Next edit →
Line 453:		Line 453:

	:'''Comment by parties:'''		:'''Comment by parties:'''
	::This was proposed as a further version of the proposed principle above, it was struck by Jehochman, suggesting I start my own section, so here it is. Beetstra commented on it above as "totally disagree," (later struck) but it's blatantly clear that blacklisting process does ''not'' normally consider whether or not links are actually improper; the standard evidence consists of lists of editors and lists of edits, and does not examine whether or not the links are actually appropriate, and it would be impossible to make that judgment in the time available to blacklist administrators. I mentioned ] above. This was a case where links were added, slowly at first, to many articles on poets with pages hosted at the web site. The user did register here (home wiki was apparently de.wikipedia.org) as {{user5\|~~Lyricker~~}}. I have yet to find an actually inappropriate link added by Lyriker. The article Lyriker created was speedied, but, when I discovered this case as part of my investigation of JzG and blacklisting practice, I was able to get the article restored, and I've slowly begun adding back in links. Was the blacklisting of lyrikline.org proper? I think so! Lyriker was adding way too many links.		::This was proposed as a further version of the proposed principle above, it was struck by Jehochman, suggesting I start my own section, so here it is. Beetstra commented on it above as "totally disagree," (later struck) but it's blatantly clear that blacklisting process does ''not'' normally consider whether or not links are actually improper; the standard evidence consists of lists of editors and lists of edits, and does not examine whether or not the links are actually appropriate, and it would be impossible to make that judgment in the time available to blacklist administrators. I mentioned ] above. This was a case where links were added, slowly at first, to many articles on poets with pages hosted at the web site. The user did register here (home wiki was apparently de.wikipedia.org) as {{user5\|Lyriker}}. I have yet to find an actually inappropriate link added by Lyriker. The article Lyriker created was speedied, but, when I discovered this case as part of my investigation of JzG and blacklisting practice, I was able to get the article restored, and I've slowly begun adding back in links. Was the blacklisting of lyrikline.org proper? I think so! Lyriker was adding way too many links.
	::I added some text about additional uses consistent with blacklist limitations, as suggested by Beetstra. Beetstra, in a comment he later struck, did not seem to understand that ''links which are totally unreliable sources (like blog.myspace.com)'' represents content control and judgment; if a notable person or group has a blog there, known to not be impersonation, a link might well be usable in a biography of this person or article on the group. The blacklist was clearly designed to be used only as an extreme measure; if it's going to be used to control content (i.e., blog.myspace.com), then consensus should be found on this that is broader than that of a handful of blacklist administrators and volunteers who are more concerned about spam than about content. However, blog.myspace.com isn't exactly blacklisted. Myspace.com is. The original addition was, apparently, at the request of Jimbo. We have quite a few whitelisted entries, but most editors won't bother to whitelist, they just won't use a link, or will nowiki it, so the whitelistings prove only that a few usages were considered legitimate. My guess is that many more would exist if not for the blacklisting. Would these be "abusive"? Some would. But source abuse occurs all the time, the blacklist can do little about it. Better: bot discovery of usage of a "commonly-abused but not linkspammed" site, creating a project list, and leading to efficient examination and clearance of specific usages, or removal, which wouldn't take administrator time. This would be a focus on content, not on spam. --] (]) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)		::I added some text about additional uses consistent with blacklist limitations, as suggested by Beetstra. Beetstra, in a comment he later struck, did not seem to understand that ''links which are totally unreliable sources (like blog.myspace.com)'' represents content control and judgment; if a notable person or group has a blog there, known to not be impersonation, a link might well be usable in a biography of this person or article on the group. The blacklist was clearly designed to be used only as an extreme measure; if it's going to be used to control content (i.e., blog.myspace.com), then consensus should be found on this that is broader than that of a handful of blacklist administrators and volunteers who are more concerned about spam than about content. However, blog.myspace.com isn't exactly blacklisted. Myspace.com is. The original addition was, apparently, at the request of Jimbo. We have quite a few whitelisted entries, but most editors won't bother to whitelist, they just won't use a link, or will nowiki it, so the whitelistings prove only that a few usages were considered legitimate. My guess is that many more would exist if not for the blacklisting. Would these be "abusive"? Some would. But source abuse occurs all the time, the blacklist can do little about it. Better: bot discovery of usage of a "commonly-abused but not linkspammed" site, creating a project list, and leading to efficient examination and clearance of specific usages, or removal, which wouldn't take administrator time. This would be a focus on content, not on spam. --] (]) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:46, 3 May 2009

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Request to narrow initial focus

1)Please act to narrow the focus of this arbitration, at least initially, to the most urgent and weighty issue presented, administrative recusal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

My review of the evidence to date has not led me to question my initial view, expressed at the acceptance stage, that there is thin fodder for an arbitration case here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

(added later) I agree with NYB, except that there was one narrow issue, presented and developed in the RfC, and not resolved there. Most comment and discussion in the RfC avoided that issue, or implicitly accepted it but proposed inadequate or "shoot the messenger" solutions. Yes, thin. And for that reason, quickly resolved had scope been limited. For the future, ArbComm may wish to consider the principle outlined here. --Abd (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

original argument for motion by Abd
This case became qualified through a focused RfC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG 3, on the topic of alleged failure to recuse when involved, and the evidence presented was limited to that issue. Whether or not JzG was "correct" in the actions was moot, and I acted (with some success) to prevent the RfC from becoming a laundry list of complaints against JzG. However, a majority of respondents in the RfC, which should be reviewed, did treat it as a content dispute and alleged misbehavior on my part. Nevertheless, WP:DR was not followed with respect to my alleged misbehavior, and that matter would ordinarily not be ripe for examination by ArbComm. It is obvious that if ArbComm determines that JzG did not violate policy, then my dispute was disruptive and my behavior would then be a proper topic for immediate examination. However, if JzG did violate policy, and if my behavior was within bounds as a following of WP:DR, then immature examination of my behavior, searching it for flaws, would be, in itself, a chilling example deterring others from similarly following WP:DR, and we need more of that following, not less. Hence I request the Committee to narrow the focus of this case, at least initially, to JzG's actions as an administrator, allowing, pending resolution of that issue, normal process to address my own errors, such as they may be. If the Committee does this, I need not answer all the allegations and irrelevant false charges being made on the Evidence page, knowing that, later, I would have an opportunity to address them if they do not become moot. There is some discussion of this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop#Possible motion to narrow focus of this case.--Abd (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

original argument for motion by Abd

This case became qualified through a focused RfC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG 3, on the topic of alleged failure to recuse when involved, and the evidence presented was limited to that issue. Whether or not JzG was "correct" in the actions was moot, and I acted (with some success) to prevent the RfC from becoming a laundry list of complaints against JzG. However, a majority of respondents in the RfC, which should be reviewed, did treat it as a content dispute and alleged misbehavior on my part. Nevertheless, WP:DR was not followed with respect to my alleged misbehavior, and that matter would ordinarily not be ripe for examination by ArbComm. It is obvious that if ArbComm determines that JzG did not violate policy, then my dispute was disruptive and my behavior would then be a proper topic for immediate examination. However, if JzG did violate policy, and if my behavior was within bounds as a following of WP:DR, then immature examination of my behavior, searching it for flaws, would be, in itself, a chilling example deterring others from similarly following WP:DR, and we need more of that following, not less. Hence I request the Committee to narrow the focus of this case, at least initially, to JzG's actions as an administrator, allowing, pending resolution of that issue, normal process to address my own errors, such as they may be. If the Committee does this, I need not answer all the allegations and irrelevant false charges being made on the Evidence page, knowing that, later, I would have an opportunity to address them if they do not become moot. There is some discussion of this at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop#Possible motion to narrow focus of this case.--Abd (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Abd's and JzG's actions each need to stand on their own. Even if Abd's accusations prove incorrect, that does not mean Abd has done wrong. On the other hand, if JzG is found to have misused tools, that does not exonerate Abd. There are possible outcomes where both are right or both are wrong. Jehochman 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman. Unfortunately, I don't see any other support appearing for the concept of disentangling the issues. There is no argument with the decision of the arbitrators to examine the conduct of all parties; the question is only one of sequence. A person is not charged with frivolous litigation until after the original cause of action has been found to be baseless. We don't prosecute someone for false fire alarm until we first check to see if there is a fire, and we don't, to save time, do both at once. I know what I was suggesting, I know that it would simplify process, and I also know that Misplaced Pages does things the hard way, but it's really up to ArbComm. My experience tells me that when I make a motion and nobody seconds it, shut up and move on, it doesn't matter how right I think I am. --Abd (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll has not accurately reported my position --Abd (talk)
The issue of JzG's alleged policy violations and my alleged misbehavior are separate issues, and only related in one direction. JzG's behavior was not with respect to me (or my interests, I was totally uninvolved at the time). My behavior was with respect to his, and is the subject of evidence and comment here only because that has been raised as a kind of defense of JzG, and as a coat-rack for other disputes. Hence whether or not my behavior was justified and appropriate is, at least partially, dependent on whether or not there were policy violations of substance. It's true, my behavior is ultimately an independent question, except that if, say, immediately before the filing of this RfAr, JzG had acknowledged the error and promised not to repeat it, it is nearly certain that any dispute over my behavior would be resolved short of arbitration, probably before RfC. Jehochman can testify that I seek consensus and that I use DR properly, because I did it with him, and you can see the positive working relationship that developed from it. The allegations re my behavior are immature for AC, not having been the subject of an RfC, and not being an emergency. (If they are an emergency, then ordinary recourse for disruption is available, I do not interpret that I have a free pass because this is at ArbComm, and, further, ArbComm could issue an injunction.) Similarly, I would not have raised issues regarding the usage of the blacklist by other administrators, because, again, it seems consensus is within reach though ordinary process and an ArbComm ruling not necessary at this time. In addition, I don't raise this issue just for myself, but as a general issue about factors that cause arbitrations to become far more disruptive than necessary. If A/C confined itself to narrow questions, one at a time, and acted to restrict expansion of cases (quickly remanding immature disputes back to the community), it would become far more efficient, taking advantage of what is well-known in dispute resolution off-wiki. More cases, perhaps (though not many more), but faster resolution, by far. It's tempting to try to resolve multiple issues at once, but centuries of experience show that this is far less efficient and far less likely to find true consensus. I'd drop the request, here, completely, except that there has been so much comment that I can't. In ordinary deliberative process, no motion is debated until there is a second. For ArbComm to adopt the practice of prohibiting debate on a motion, here, unless the motion is seconded, a great deal of wasted time would be avoided. Nobody seconded my motion, and were I chair, I'd rule it failed for lack of a second, and it would be collapsed as closed for that reason. We'd have been done with it in quickly. Maybe there should be a process chair for ArbComm procedure, perhaps appointed by the committee, with rulings of the chair appealable for immediate determination without debate by the committee. I.e., what anyone here who has experience with real world consensus and deliberative process would see as normal. (Clerks sort of do this, but with no guidance on the point I've raised.) So, I'm going to request that a clerk, absent objection, i.e., the appearance of a second, close and collapse this motion as having failed for lack of a second, and consider doing that with others. (It's reversible, should anyone later decide to support such a motion.) Be bold. --Abd (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Fritzpoll has not accurately reported my position --Abd (talk)

The issue of JzG's alleged policy violations and my alleged misbehavior are separate issues, and only related in one direction. JzG's behavior was not with respect to me (or my interests, I was totally uninvolved at the time). My behavior was with respect to his, and is the subject of evidence and comment here only because that has been raised as a kind of defense of JzG, and as a coat-rack for other disputes. Hence whether or not my behavior was justified and appropriate is, at least partially, dependent on whether or not there were policy violations of substance. It's true, my behavior is ultimately an independent question, except that if, say, immediately before the filing of this RfAr, JzG had acknowledged the error and promised not to repeat it, it is nearly certain that any dispute over my behavior would be resolved short of arbitration, probably before RfC. Jehochman can testify that I seek consensus and that I use DR properly, because I did it with him, and you can see the positive working relationship that developed from it. The allegations re my behavior are immature for AC, not having been the subject of an RfC, and not being an emergency. (If they are an emergency, then ordinary recourse for disruption is available, I do not interpret that I have a free pass because this is at ArbComm, and, further, ArbComm could issue an injunction.) Similarly, I would not have raised issues regarding the usage of the blacklist by other administrators, because, again, it seems consensus is within reach though ordinary process and an ArbComm ruling not necessary at this time.

In addition, I don't raise this issue just for myself, but as a general issue about factors that cause arbitrations to become far more disruptive than necessary. If A/C confined itself to narrow questions, one at a time, and acted to restrict expansion of cases (quickly remanding immature disputes back to the community), it would become far more efficient, taking advantage of what is well-known in dispute resolution off-wiki. More cases, perhaps (though not many more), but faster resolution, by far. It's tempting to try to resolve multiple issues at once, but centuries of experience show that this is far less efficient and far less likely to find true consensus. I'd drop the request, here, completely, except that there has been so much comment that I can't. In ordinary deliberative process, no motion is debated until there is a second. For ArbComm to adopt the practice of prohibiting debate on a motion, here, unless the motion is seconded, a great deal of wasted time would be avoided. Nobody seconded my motion, and were I chair, I'd rule it failed for lack of a second, and it would be collapsed as closed for that reason. We'd have been done with it in quickly. Maybe there should be a process chair for ArbComm procedure, perhaps appointed by the committee, with rulings of the chair appealable for immediate determination without debate by the committee. I.e., what anyone here who has experience with real world consensus and deliberative process would see as normal. (Clerks sort of do this, but with no guidance on the point I've raised.)

So, I'm going to request that a clerk, absent objection, i.e., the appearance of a second, close and collapse this motion as having failed for lack of a second, and consider doing that with others. (It's reversible, should anyone later decide to support such a motion.) Be bold. --Abd (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." This is just as much about Abd's ongoing incivility, wikihounding and general disruptive behavior as it is about JzG's long past recusals or lack thereof. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I see where Abd is coming from with this, but don't think the case will go any faster or be any more efficient a use of time if it is split into two. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Six of the 11 accepting arbs indicated an expilict intent to examine the actions of all parties (by my rough count). It's a little late for one of the parties to suggest their own actions shouldn't be considered until the other party has been examined. Especially since the suggesting party has used every possible avenue to have the "other" party examined and censured leading up to this case. Franamax (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Follow up: I think the problem here is that a finding of wrongdoing by JzG does not imply a specific finding (or lack thereof) with regards to Abd. JzG can have been found to have done something wrong and Abd could be sanctioned for having approached it inappropriately. I think Abd views this case as having two possible combinations of findings: (JzG = wrong, Abd = right) or (JzG = right, Abd = wrong). In reality, it is possible for both parties to be right or both parties to be wrong (crudely speaking) and so it is of greater efficiency to examine the parties together, when the evidence is necessarily overlapping. Abd is not being "prosecuted" for frivolous litigation, but his behaviour is being examined in how the complaint was pursued. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee should not limit its mandate to the issues as specifically put forth by Jehochman when he initiated this case, for indeed we have a variety of questions and issues to be dealt with here that go beyond the scope of simple mediation or dispute resolution: Arbcom should feel behooved to clarify whatever issues and disparities led up to this case in the first place - including the issues raised in the dispute-resolution process leading up to this case. However this case as presented by Jehochman does not (understandably) itemise all these issues and therefore the scope of the case is very poorly defined, and users seem to be adding some irrelavancies to the scope, and, are adding only some of the many relevancies to the scope, resulting in a distorted scope for the Arbitration Committee.

Furthermore, looking over this case, when we look at the Dispute-Resolution process leading up to this far, we see that Abd has extensively followed the dispute-resolution process (rightfully or wrongfully) leading up to requesting a case with ArbCom as a last resort which was in fact imminent based on the result of his last RfC; but his opportunity to present his case and propose his own mandate to Arbcom has been usurped/circumvented by Jehochman's case request; instead of being able to present his own case, he has to instead defend someone else's that has a totally different scope. I do not believe that the best interests of the project are served with an unclear scope as presented in good faith by Jehochman, and nor is it best served by cramming millions of issues into the scope of this case. In real life judges have the ability to separate trials/cases, especially when it is more economic to do so, or in the alternative they go to their jurists and present them with a very clear scope. Abd's request to "narrow the focus of this arbitration .. to the most urgent and weighty issue presented" is not totally without merit; and neither is NewYorkBrad's assertion that there is thin fodder for an arbitration case simply because Arbcom has not been presented with a thorough context or scope by Jehochman.

Some may call me cynical of ArbCom's capabilities but this may be mistaking my naivette, and my comments here are made with respect, in good faith of all parties, and with genuine concern -- mistaken or unmistaken. Rfwoolf (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also since remembered that one of the conditions of an Arbcom case is that previous attempts to resolve the problem through dispute resolution are required before a case can be opened (Arbcom is the final stage in dispute resolution). Here, dispute resolution has not been tested with regards to disputes of Abd's handling of the matter, and yet it is given full weight, meanwhile Abd's actual concerns as laid out in his RfC Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3 which has gone completely through dispute resolution without consensus being reached has to share the same floor. Arbcom should of course be allowed to accept disputes that have not finished going through dispute resolution which is what I think has happened here, but that doesn't mean it is the best or most fair thing to do and perhaps there should be a guidelines discouraging it if a party was going to file an ArbCom case after his own attempts at dispute resolution, only to be beaten to the punch by another user. It is still "early" in the process, but so far things don't appear to be moving forward in a fashion that is befitting of Misplaced Pages's final step in dispute resolution. Under this line of thought, User:Jehochman should not have opened this Arbcom case because he was not the one following dispute resolution, Abd was. Rfwoolf (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Jehochman

Proposed principles

Policy and point of view

1) Verifiability, Neutral point of view, No original research, and What Misplaced Pages is not are ~~core~~ policies. They are not points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We welcome editors with different points of view. We do not welcome editors who persistently violate content policies. There are claims that Guy was involved because of his efforts to enforce these policies. Jehochman 10:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Maybe I just don't get it. Who said they were points of view? Why does this need to be said? If there were specific application shown, maybe. Guy claimed reliance on policies, often, but his understanding of how to apply them was colored by his involvement. No allegation has been made by me of bad faith; he clearly believes that our policies would prohibit, for example, any linking whatever, for whatever purpose, to lenr-canr.org, and he even edit warred in an attempt to prevent it after we managed to get one page whitelisted. However, that same assumption of good faith requires me to consider that he hasn't been competent to judge when to recuse or not, and recusal when involved is also a policy. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2009

Clarification Administrators cannot enforce NPOV with tools, this is a basic misunderstanding shared by too many administrators, not just JzG. This is because NPOV is not a POV that an admin holds; when an admin judges that text is POV, the admin has developed a POV, or is, as in the case before us, applying a prior POV. NPOV is not developed or enforced except through editorial consensus; where narrow consensus is warped, we broaden attention through WP:DR; however, the best negotiations are made in good faith between involved editors, i.e., those who know the topic and who have, therefore, opinions of weight, not merely knee-jerk reactions. The job of administrators in this is to mediate and enforce behavioral guidelines, and the process breaks down when an admin fails to recuse when involved or is applying prior prejudice, thus warping behavioral enforcement toward one POV. Examples abound, unfortunately, even though most admins very properly recuse when involved. Edit the articles or police behavior around them, don't do both, and, even though not editing an article, don't support just one side of a content dispute with tools, based on agreement with that side. --Abd (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Just wanted to point out that NOT is NOT a 'core' policy, at least by most people's definitions. It's a policy, but not one we die by, like V, NPOV, and NOR. rootology (C)(T) 01:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Contradicts WP:NPOV, which says "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints". It's also unclear what the relevance is to this case. It's very common for content disputes to revolve around different interpretations of how to apply content policies in specific situations. Believing that one is enforcing a content policy is not normally an excuse for editwarring, for example, regardless of whether a later majority vote or consensus decision agrees with your interpretation or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

2) Dispute resolution is for resolving disagreements. It may not be used to intimidate, pressure or wear down an opponent.

2.1) Dispute resolution is for good faith attempts to resolve disagreements. It may not be used to intimidate, pressure or wear down an opponent. Likewise, editors may not exert improper influence, such as threatening blocks or bans, to deter others from making legitimate dispute resolution requests.

2.2) Dispute resolution is a process for resolving disagreements over article content or editorial behavior. It requires the same civility standards as every other action on Misplaced Pages and should not be abused to make personal attacks. Users who are misusing this process as a way to intimidate, pressure or wear down one or more editors may be sanctioned. Likewise, editors may not exert improper influence, such as threatening blocks or bans, to deter others from making legitimate dispute resolution requests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Necessary because there are allegations that WP:DR may have been gamed. Whether or not this happened, it is important to state as a principal that WP:DR may not be abused as a WP:BATTLE tactic. Jehochman 10:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I added 2.2 to synthesize what I'd seen so far. I'm still not confident it's complete. DR hasn't been used with me, mostly, so I don't see it from that side; editors not infrequently warn me, complain about me, but don't take the next step of involving a third editor, especially of involving someone neutral. In the other direction, I've seen an RfC filed by admins on an editor when, clearly, the goal from the beginning wasn't to develop consensus but to ban the editor, with whom they were in content conflict, and simply to show a basis for that. Something I'd really like to see this RfAr encourage is for WP:DR to be followed by the book and by the intent of it. It works, usually, even at a quite low level, and it only fails when positions are entrenched, in which case escalation becomes necessary. --Abd (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Elemental but too vague. I think it should rather be expanded, maybe like this:

Dispute resolution is a process for resolving disagreements over an article's content. It requires the same civility standards as every other action on Misplaced Pages and should not be abused to make personal attacks. Users who are misusing this process as a way to intimidate, pressure or wear down one or more editors who hold different views can and will be sanctioned accordingly.

Thoughts? Regards So Why 20:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Normally, WP:BATTLE is in part defined as a failure to use proper DR channels. The wording here is very vague and eminently gameable; we may expect many disruptive editors to invoke it, if it becomes part of the decision. Durova 23:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, WP:BATTLE has included instances when people used WP:DR with no intention of actually resolving a dispute. They were trying to get their opponents sanctioned, blocked or banned, by whatever means were available. See also vexatious litigation. Jehochman 00:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The dispute resolution used here was conduct RfC, initiated because Abd saw a need for recusal with regard to the spam blacklist. Considering that within about the last day a site was removed from the spam blacklist by consensus, and that JzG himself agreed during RFAR that he probably ought to have recused, I am curious to know how this case might be distinguishable from normal and proper use of dispute resolution. What is vexatious about this? Durova 00:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're jumping ahead. This is a principal, not a finding of fact. Various people have alleged vexatious litigation. We should first agree to the principal that vexatious litigation is a bad thing. Then we can look at the evidence and see if that happened, or not, and explain why or why not. This is how we can get people on both sides to agree, hopefully. I have done a very large amount of negotiating in real life and have a pretty good concept of how to get to "yes". Jehochman 00:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed principle: the sky is blue. How is that or this relevant to this case? Durova 00:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where I am, the sky is black. Shall we edit war over it? Wishing you a beautiful sunset, Jehochman 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The strange thing is you begin posting workshop proposals a day after the case opens before one of the two principal named parties has presented evidence, and then call the response to your proposals premature. Durova 01:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hows about Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages is not about winning? Is that the idea you're after? rootology (C)(T) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I really like that. Dispute resolution is not a competitive sport. Jehochman 01:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the versions proposed by Jehochman and So Why refer to misuse of the DR process by intimidation and pressure. However, as Durova has noted, it is proper for some disputes to escalate through the process, and this is sometimes met with accusations this escalation is actually inappropriate pressure, wikilawyering or battling. I think Jehochman is right that a pinciple noting the inappropriateness of vexatious litigation is needed; however, recognition is also needed that attempts to intimidate people into dropping a case or not escalating to the next step in DR is just as wrong. The mere fact that someone has moved to the next stage of DR is not a reasonable basis for criticism. EdChem (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How about 2.1? There are allegations in this case that improper influences were exerted to prevent DR from moving forward. Jehochman 14:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think 2.1 is a substantial improvement... it recognises both types of abuses - and I think there are allegations of both in this case. EdChem (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't kept it in mind, but there were instances of threats that I'd be sanctioned if I continued. JzG, though, only wrote something like this once, as I recall. Nothing I'd bring up. I suppose I could look it up if someone thinks it relevant. The RfC was filled with comments that I should be banned, basically for pursuing WP:DR, though of course it wasn't stated that way. Rather, as I recall, it was for "disruption," for "beating a dead horse," for harassing JzG, or for unrelated offenses. Hey! that dead horse just got up and ran out the barn door! (newenergytimes removed from the blacklist, lenr-canr.org has one whitelisting and really is a very similar situation to lenr-canr.org, so one-and-a half down, a few to go. None of the other issues have been presented for DR resolution beyond initial comment. --Abd (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. 2.1 is an improvement over 2, but I have concerns about this sentence: "It may not be used to intimidate, pressure or wear down an opponent." Giving someone escalating warnings, then applying sanctions or soliciting opinions from other users, with the ultimate goal of persuading the person to change their behaviour to conform to a policy or guideline, could be described as "wearing down" the person, and the use or warning of use of sanctions could be described as "intimidating", but such actions are a normal and necessary part of wikiinteraction. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The operative term is opponent. One should not be sanctioning an opponent. If you come into a situation as uninvolved, you are free to warn or sanction an editor as required to protect the project from disruption. I am sure the wording could be improved. Please propose something, Coppertwig. Jehochman 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

CommentThis comes across as disingenuous (I know, AGF etc). You've proposed two principles. The first one you pretty much explicitly say is intended to move things towards your preferred conclusion (Guy is only seen as involved because of his darling efforts to enforce policy). The second one you then indignantly defend as just being a principle when people naturally see it as another step towards your desired conclusion. You say you have done a lot of negotiating in real life but is that really how you find it works - you propose a set of principles on the basis that the first one is directed towards exonerating party A and the second one is just setting out that if party B did what he's accused of then that would be BAD (let's agree that before discussing whether he did it...). Do you think that in negotiations outside of Misplaced Pages that party B would tend to view that as antagonistic? Why not start by saying how inappropriate it would be to make admin actions when involve in a content dispute, because Guy's accused of that? Don't get me wrong, you're allowed to be partisan I'm sure, but I don't think jumping backwards and fowards between partisan advocate and neutral negotiator is going to work. (disclaimer, not a party, yes a busy body, no account etc. etc. But that doesn't affect the point I'm making) 87.254.80.250 (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Using tools while involved is inconsistent with 2.1, at least as I read it. It is likely to be intimidatory. It certainly is using improper influence. And, it is questionable whether such an action is taken in good faith. However, I would agree that the principle that using tools while involved is inappropriate, potentially sanctionable, and that it invites additional scrutiny should also be stated. Admin recusal is definitely an issue in this case. EdChem (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've held off on this as long as possible. Both versions of this proposed principle include the assertion that dispute resolution may not be used to intimidate. Compare that wording to an occasion that happened less than one month ago in connection to the JzG RFC. I had posted to Jehochman's talk page saying "I have no wish to enter formal dispute resolution with you, but no reluctance to either. So if you wish to shake cyberhands, please post a few words to that effect. Best wishes," (full text here) which Jehochman blanked with an unpleasant edit summary and followed up at my user talk to say "I despise the way you keep threatening me with process," (full text here). Now if--according to Jehochman's own words--that constitutes a misuse of dispute resolution on my part, then I am at a loss to conceive how I may ever use it properly. Are editors to be left without recourse when an administrator assaults their integrity? Durova 21:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, editors may request dispute resolution at any time, if they do so in good faith. What they may not do is use threats of dispute resolution (vexatious litigation) in an attempt to dominate another editor, or overwhelm them to redundant complaints hither and thither. Jehochman 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you reconcile that with your own reaction to my statement less than three weeks ago that you did not come to the JzG RfC with clean hands on matters of recusal, and that if I were the initiator of this case it would have been named Administrative recusal and included you as a named party? The terms upon which you initiated this case and have presented workshop proposals could be read as an attempt to frame the scope of discussion in terms of a microdispute between JzG and Abd, which might be laudable on the part of a truly disinterested Wikipedian, but the fact is that it also happens to be to your direct advantage to define the scope on these terms--in ways which you have not disclosed within the case despite your very active presence here as case initiator and workshop proposal writer. Durova 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Sheesh! Look away for a few minutes and the kids are squabbling again. Durova et al, Jehochman's proposal is basically right and does no harm, especially if the best and most complete wording is accepted. I know that there is lots you can say about this, and it's mostly better left not said. Sure, I don't like Jehochman's "framing," not really expressed with this proposal, and, sure, it's part of the problem, but, one issue at a time. Part of building consensus is accepting whatever is, at worst, harmless from the other parties. With other proposed findings or principles, the "personal squabble" framing may come up, though the nails are falling out day by day. We can deal with it then and, Durova, I'm sure you'll have plenty to say on it if it does, and I may be right there with you. Meanwhile, I've got the rest of my evidence to prepare, articles to work on, and kids to get to school in the morning.... --Abd (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone needs proof that Abd and I are not two peas in a pod, there you have it. Now as everyone probably knows, Jehochman and I haven't always been best of chums either. Regardless, each issue I raise is presented on its merits--not as a pretext for supporting or opposing particular people. People can find themselves in awkward positions when workshop proposals go up too early; that probably applies on all sides. Durova 02:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I have no doubt that you raise some valid points. Yes, I thought it was early myself; how about having a week's evidence? Is there some emergency here? I don't think so, JzG isn't editing at all (may have nothing to do with this), though some may think my editing a problem. But if that's an emergency, every admin has a block button and, besides, I respond to warnings from administrators. Even when I don't agree with them; I then, if I think it important, follow WP:DR with the warning admin or at least obtain community support before proceeding. But obviously Jehochman had a different view, and it takes all kinds to build a project. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

3) The spam blacklist is used to prevent the addition of links to Misplaced Pages which have been ~~spammed~~ abused widely. The spam blacklist is not for filtering out unreliable sources.

3.1) The spam blacklist is used to prevent the addition of links to Misplaced Pages which have been, or are likely to be, abused widely, or which contain malware or copyright violations.

3.2) The spam blacklist is properly used to prevent the massive addition of links to Misplaced Pages without review and consensus. As such, any addition of links, whether the individual links are proper or not, may result in blacklisting, if other means of addressing the problem proves inadequate. Content arguments, such as "not reliable source," are irrelevant to blacklisting itself, except that "reliable source" may be an argument for delisting or whitelisting specific pages. If there is no continued danger of widespread unexamined link addition, prior blacklisting, whether proper or not, should be irrelevant to a delisting request. - This is not my proposal. Please propose in your own section. Thanks. Jehochman 13:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. May need technical tweaks. Jehochman 23:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. Yes, it might need some expansion, because there may be some applications of the blacklist beyond wide linkspam. However, this statement does leave room for other possible uses, it simply rules out one that is, by consensus when considered, not legitimate. Going further than that here may not be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

early considerations by Abd
Ummm. As "spammed," the word might offend some editor, yes, but "abused" opens the door to discussion at the blacklist of what constitutes abuse. "Linkspam" is a term of art that refers to massive addition of links without finding consensus even if the links are legitimate, and routinely, I've seen sites blacklisted where every link was legitimate in hindsight, but being added in volumes such that there is also legitimate concern that the links aren't receiving due consideration. Then, because blacklisting creates a severe problem for naive editors who can't save an edit to any part of an article or section they are editing, because of some link that they won't necessarily recognize, the links must be removed. So antispam volunteers end up, sometimes massively, reverting good edits with no discussion. Convenient for the antispammers, but sometimes harmful to content. Instead of "spammed" or "abused," I'd suggest "to prevent the massive and rapid addition of links to Misplaced Pages without a showing of acceptability." Otherwise we will see what we've seen in Beetstra's evidence, that links added in a good faith belief that they were appropriate, over a long period of time, come to be viewed as evidence of abuse. "Abuse" is a term which could apply to any allegedly inappropriate link. "Copyright violations," unless massive or involving a site where we should know that copyvio is likely, is an argument that was used against lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com. Possible violations below that level create no legal risk for Misplaced Pages. Editors should not have to verify and prove that a page on a durable and readily visible web site is not a copyright violation, it turns quick edits into a red tape nightmare. Low-level copyright problems need no blacklist, the blacklist is quite clearly designed in MediaWiki for prevention of massive linkspam that can't be dealt with any other way. Possible exceptions to "massive addition without review" or whatever should be documented and accepted by consensus, otherwise there will continually be disruption about this. Absolutely, a A.B. notes below, malware is an excellent exception, one that can be treated as an emergency. What is essential is that broad generalizations about the supposed unusability of a web site ("Not reliable source") not become a reason for blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

early considerations by Abd

Ummm. As "spammed," the word might offend some editor, yes, but "abused" opens the door to discussion at the blacklist of what constitutes abuse. "Linkspam" is a term of art that refers to massive addition of links without finding consensus even if the links are legitimate, and routinely, I've seen sites blacklisted where every link was legitimate in hindsight, but being added in volumes such that there is also legitimate concern that the links aren't receiving due consideration. Then, because blacklisting creates a severe problem for naive editors who can't save an edit to any part of an article or section they are editing, because of some link that they won't necessarily recognize, the links must be removed. So antispam volunteers end up, sometimes massively, reverting good edits with no discussion. Convenient for the antispammers, but sometimes harmful to content. Instead of "spammed" or "abused," I'd suggest "to prevent the massive and rapid addition of links to Misplaced Pages without a showing of acceptability." Otherwise we will see what we've seen in Beetstra's evidence, that links added in a good faith belief that they were appropriate, over a long period of time, come to be viewed as evidence of abuse. "Abuse" is a term which could apply to any allegedly inappropriate link. "Copyright violations," unless massive or involving a site where we should know that copyvio is likely, is an argument that was used against lenr-canr.org and newenergytimes.com. Possible violations below that level create no legal risk for Misplaced Pages. Editors should not have to verify and prove that a page on a durable and readily visible web site is not a copyright violation, it turns quick edits into a red tape nightmare. Low-level copyright problems need no blacklist, the blacklist is quite clearly designed in MediaWiki for prevention of massive linkspam that can't be dealt with any other way. Possible exceptions to "massive addition without review" or whatever should be documented and accepted by consensus, otherwise there will continually be disruption about this. Absolutely, a A.B. notes below, malware is an excellent exception, one that can be treated as an emergency. What is essential is that broad generalizations about the supposed unusability of a web site ("Not reliable source") not become a reason for blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed 3.2 to reflect actual practice plus issue raised in the extended DR process over the original problem blacklisting. Blacklisting typically doesn't originally consider content appropriateness at all, and the case of Lyrikline.org shows that the concern is only massive addition; evidence didn't consider content arguments, and content was actually appropriate, as subsequently shown. There may be exceptions, no doubt, but use of the blacklist to enforce NPOV or "fringe" opinions or judgment of source reliability is a dangerous mixing of admin power and editorial process. The problem with blacklisting is generally not abusive blacklisting, that's rare. The problem is with excessive reluctance to delist or whitelist when a danger can be seen as past, and the "danger" is not that a source may be inappropriately used; that happens all the time. The danger is that links will be spammed, i.e., massively added without opportunity for review and consensus. --Abd (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

specifics by Abd
The links Beetstra examined in his Evidence were generally used in Cold fusion, an article under constant and intense review, there is no danger of extensive inappropriate links remaining there. What Beetstra's evidence amounted to was a finding that two web sites, probably the most visible on the internet on the topic, were used for sourcing claims, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. Basically, for blacklisting purposes, this was no evidence at all. The original blacklisting "notice for transparency" by JzG didn't provide the evidence normally seen, but just alleged "promotion" of the site. That could refer to linkspam, but, in fact, there was no linkspam at all, the "promotion" was the signature of an IP editor on Talk:Cold fusion, of "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org" which was not a link at all, but a non-linked title, showing notable expertise, as well as conflict of interest, and these site mentions were not interdicted by blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

specifics by Abd

The links Beetstra examined in his Evidence were generally used in Cold fusion, an article under constant and intense review, there is no danger of extensive inappropriate links remaining there. What Beetstra's evidence amounted to was a finding that two web sites, probably the most visible on the internet on the topic, were used for sourcing claims, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. Basically, for blacklisting purposes, this was no evidence at all. The original blacklisting "notice for transparency" by JzG didn't provide the evidence normally seen, but just alleged "promotion" of the site. That could refer to linkspam, but, in fact, there was no linkspam at all, the "promotion" was the signature of an IP editor on Talk:Cold fusion, of "Jed Rothwell, librarian, lenr-canr.org" which was not a link at all, but a non-linked title, showing notable expertise, as well as conflict of interest, and these site mentions were not interdicted by blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Generally support, though one might consider "The 'spam blacklist' is used to prevent the addition of links to Misplaced Pages which have been abused widely" (spam and spamming being negative perojatives which tend to offend people). --Dirk Beetstra 09:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We sometimes blacklist sites on en.wikipedia that are extremely abusive but have not been widely spammed. Furthermore, URL redirects or malware sites are blacklisted on site on Meta. Copyvio sites are also often blacklisted even if not widely spammed. Finally, we'll often blacklist a spammer's other domains even if not yet spammed when the spammer has ignored multiple warnings regarding his spam domains. --A. B. 19:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: the blacklist is occasionally used to filter out unreliable sources; the most prominent instance was Jimbo Wales' decision to blacklist blog.myspace.com. The instances are few and far between but appropriate in my opinion. --A. B. 20:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Is version 3.1 better? Jehochman 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether 3.0 or 3.1, does this principle amount to ArbCom setting policy as to use of the blacklist? (Given that there is no "among other uses" clause) Is this within ArbCom's remit? Franamax (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Franamax here on reading 3.1 (the problem is less with 3.0).

Reply to Abd. A lot of spammers here come in good faith, and even SEO's do. They come here to 'enrich' our Misplaced Pages with their links, and with their information, and to enable the wikipedia community to find their products. They don't know that they violate our policies and guidelines, and hence abuse 'our servers'. Still, they do. Generally, we warn, and if there is no positive response (or it can not be expected due to changing accounts), then the abuse if of a form where sanctions ~~are~~may be necessary. You say here "Otherwise we will see what we've seen in Beetstra's evidence, that links added in a good faith belief that they were appropriate, over a long period of time, come to be viewed as evidence of abuse.". Some of the links I present there are recent links, at times where IPs are warned using captchas (I think it is "MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-addurl", in this form since December 2007 "Your edit includes new external links. These may be much welcomed links to references. Please note that the nofollow HTML attribute is applied to external links in Misplaced Pages, instructing search engines to ignore these links when computing page ranks. For information on our standards for adding links, please see our External links Guideline."; question, do not autoconfirmed editors also get this?). And in times where discussions with Pcarbonn about POV etc. were already ongoing. I agree, blacklisting on single abuse is too harsh (exceptions are there, but generally), but if the abuse is over a longer period of time, multiple editors and multiple wikipedia pages, and at least some of the editors were at least warned (and note, that IPs are warned even if they don't have a warning on their talkpage!), or issues were discussed, then the distinction is different (I however would agree with a phrase "is the abuse here of a scale wide enough to allow for blacklisting?", but suggesting that there is abolutely no proof of abuse here .. hmmm ..). --Dirk Beetstra 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Expand: Abd, you seem to be afraid, that "abuse" will encapsulate the blacklisting of unreliable sources without them having been abused or spammed. Abuse here means that a site was abused, that there have been editors who have used the site in any form of abuse. What constitutes abuse, and what is 'wide scale' is down to interpretation and discussion, but we are talking about cases where editors (including admins) have reason to blacklist because they see additions in the past which they see/interpret as a form of abuse. There is, in my opinion, for regular sites absolutely NO reason to blacklist without it having been abused (possible: redirectsites and malware sites, and sites which are part of a larger group of sites (where a number of these were already significantly abused, e.g. all websites registered to a spammer which reside all on one server) being exceptions, these exceptions should probably be mentioned separately in guidelines or policies). --Dirk Beetstra 10:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, 3.1 looks better. I'd also add something along the lines of "The spam blacklist is also occasionally used to block unreliable sites that have not been spammed but only after very widespread community discussion and consensus." --A. B. 12:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose 3.0, support 3.1. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Totally disagree with 3.2, there are cases which are not covered, ~~like abusive links (attack sites),~~ links to malware sites (sites which are a threat to users following the link), redirects (tinyurl and such), pre-emptive blacklisting of links on same server (like porn sites, where the first sets were abused), or which are clearly a target of the same SEO (where the SEO is working for a group of websites, and has started spamming a couple of them), and actually, links which are totally unreliable sources (like blog.myspace.com). The blacklist is to stop abuse using external links, plain and simple, not just "to prevent the massive addition of links to Misplaced Pages without review and consensus", and that is better covered in 3.0 and 3.1. --Dirk Beetstra 13:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)(strikethrough, you are right Dtobias --Dirk Beetstra 14:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC))Proposal removed, comment here unnecessery. --Dirk Beetstra 16:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

~~"Attack sites"? Is WP:BADSITES still being used as an excuse to suppress links? *Dan T.* (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)~~
~~What's this badsites thing I keep hearing about? It must be something from before my time here. Jehochman 13:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)~~
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Abd and dispute resolution~~
~~1) User:Abd has not used dispute resolution in bad faith.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
I've said this before. While Abd might have pushed further than he should have, he was acting in what he thought were the best interests of the project. Jehochman 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How could I possibly disagree with this? --Abd (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by others:
This gets into assigning motivation, which is dangerous ground for ArbCom. It also seems a bit misplaced - after all, the worst harm that has befallen this encyclopedia has been done by people unshakably convinced that they were acting in the best interests of the project. MastCell 03:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
We can't know motivation; true. We can draw reasonable conclusions based on observed behavior. Abd has been accused of causing severe disruption. At some point we have to decided this issue. If there has been a failure of community-based dispute resolution, we have to find out why. I am proposing that Abd has not acted so improperly that they could be deemed as acting in bad faith. Fact is, Durova supports Abd's position, so he's not alone in this. There's probably at least some merit to his complaint. Jehochman 15:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
~~I agree with this, it has maybe gone on a bit too far, but I do believe he is acting in what he thinks is for the best interests of the project. --Dirk Beetstra 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)~~
~~JzG and Cold Fusion~~
~~2) JzG has stated that he will not administrate in the area of cold fusion going forward.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Just to make clear what was already agreed at the suggestion of User:Newyorkbrad. Jehochman 23:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The only problem with this is that the issue wasn't Cold fusion, it was admin recusal. Do we need a separate promise for every article and situation that JzG might encounter where he should recuse? Does he promise not to block Nuxx bar? Quite simply, I didn't look for general abuse of tools, just with respect to one article. However, no big problem, it's just a fact, I think, if supported by a diff. It's just not terribly relevant. Let's see what the evidence page shows after a week, and especially after JzG submits evidence, if he does. --Abd (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it is clear that the specific instance serves as a warning for the general situation. JzG is clueful and well-meaning. I think he'll be more careful about recusal going forward. Hopefully he'll post something to that effect. Jehochman 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to think that; unfortunately, the evidence shows otherwise. JzG was under an RfC for failure to recuse, and, in the middle of it, he removed an IP edit from the RfC and blocked, while, on the face, involved. Even if JzG had some legitimate reason for the block, the appearance of involvement creates an obligation to recuse. This block, a few days ago, shows a failure to take the matter seriously and to alter behavior, even under scrutiny. Cold fusion was merely an example. While it seems possible it was a coincidence that investigating Cold fusion history turned up so much evidence, it's unlikely. From prior cases, such as those of Tango and Physchim62, with showing of "pattern" less than seen here, the community and the committee seem likely to need an acknowledgment from the administrator that a subject action was a violation, and then, a promise not to repeat such violations -- with any involvement -- in the future. Physchim62 and Tango, no doubt, blocked in good faith, but showed, by the action, a disregard of recusal requirements, and continued, once challenged, to defend the actions as proper, as has JzG. It was very clear with Physchim62 (and, I think, Tango) that the community and committee would have forgiven everything if they had acknowledged the error. So far, after much request, JzG came up with, in his statement in this RfAr, "maybe I am not the best person to take action on that article any more, having become imbroiled in the dispute." This acknowledges no violation, in fact. So what happens the next time JzG encounters a situation, is involved, and thinks he should block or blacklist or whatever? Will he recognize the involvement and recuse? There is no question of punishment, but it is not punishment to prevent further damage when there is reason to suspect that damage will recur. --Abd (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
No comment on most of your post, Abd, but I just want to point out that this FoF only refers to JzG's further administrative involvement in the topic of cold fusion; it makes no assertion that he has stated he will similarly recuse himself elsewhere, which seems to be what you're concerned about. The statement you quote ("maybe I am not the best person to take action on that article any more, having become imbroiled in the dispute.") does state that he will stop using the tools with respect to cold fusion. Hersfold 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem, from my perspective, is that Abd keeps saying that Guy has had ongoing problems, but the evidence doesn't support that. Am I missing something? Is this block really the only instance of recent "admin abuse" to be found? Because I think you'll find it difficult to get people up in arms about blocking an obvious troll who followed Guy here from an off-wiki dispute. There's not much substance here. Time might be better spent organizing and presenting actual evidence of an active problem (diffs, log entries, etc) rather than repeating claims which seem to lack a sound foundation. MastCell 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Clerks, please reserve comment sections for parties to comments by parties. This comment may be moved with those above by non-parties as a threaded response. I will present evidence of JzG incivility before the week is up. I had hoped to avoid that issue, in spite of substantial urging off-wiki to bring it up. Apparently it's necessary now. No, the recent block I do not see as uncivil, particularly, but as evidence of recent action while involved and flagrant disregard of what was already extensive notice to JzG by the community that it was a problem, as described in the RfC and, of course, including the RfC itself. I'm not seeking to "get people up in arms," at all. I'm asking for a sober judgment by the committee. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Agree with this. Abd, this is about the cold fusion case, we don't decide here about possible 'refusal' to recuse in future cases, similarly to not blacklisting sites that can be misused in the future. --Dirk Beetstra 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
One consequence of this case is that any finding here will serve as notice to JzG. Hopefully that would prevent any hypothetical refusal to recuse. Should that contingency occur, as Abd fears, I expect the Committee would take swift and stern action. Jehochman 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Why should JzG fear Committee would take swift and stern action when someone who pledged to not revert JzG's adminstrative actions in front of ArbCom less than 1 year ago is reverting JzG's adminstrative actions? Pledges to do things in front of ArbCom are apparently unimportant and irrelevent - like pledges to be "open to recall." Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose unless a diff of an unambiguous statement to that effect is provided. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposals by User:Ronnotel~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Tools exist primarily to sanction behavior, not content~~
~~1) The use of administrative tools should be limited to the minimum required to prevent disruptive behavior. Using them to restrict access to material in a content dispute should be avoided.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
Comment by others:
At their most fundamental level, administrative tools are meant to be coercive - i.e. to discourage disruptive behavior and encourage productive. Their effectiveness is lost when they are employed against something incapable of learning, such as the content itself. Ronnotel (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the general statement, "Tools exist to sanction behavior, not content" however I would support "Using the blacklist to restrict access to material in a content dispute among established editors should be avoided." As to whether the blacklist is a behavioral or content tool can be a matter of semantics; It's commonly said in dealing with spammers that "blocking is a behavioral tool to protect Misplaced Pages while domain blacklisting is a content tool." We sometimes use page protection, another tool, in content disputes for brief periods of time. --A. B. 20:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I take your point, AB. However, I do think it's important to stress that the primary purpose of the tools is to address behavior. I believe a much higher level of care should be shown when they are used to address content concerns. I suspect this is something we can readily agree upon. Is the description of my proposed principal in line with your thoughts? If so, perhaps we can come up with a better tag line? How about Tools exist primarily to sanction behavior, not content'? Ronnotel (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've discussed this at great length with Beetstra. The general statement is accurate. "Should be avoided" doesn't mean that there are no circumstances where the blacklist process may -- nay, must -- consider content. Maybe a general statement about use of admin tools is important, but perhaps also a more specific one about the blacklist itself. Bottom line: blacklisting was designed to deal only with massive linkspam, that couldn't be handled other ways, so if that doesn't exist, there should be no blacklisting, and exceptions would require a strong showing of damage (such as malware, good example). Then, if the danger is past, delisting should probably be routine. I will, later, give examples. However, if there is real and present danger of massive linkspam, then whitelisting specific pages becomes a cumbersome but necessary way of dealing with legitimate use, and this, then, should require some showing of either necessity, or, possibly, simple, nearly automatic process whereby registered editors can easily request whitelisting, not be grilled about it, and it's granted by a neutral admin, and blacklist volunteer admins would not ever decline a whitelisting request, because of the circularity that gets set up. This means less burden on the blacklist volunteers, who do a very important and difficult job. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Abd and I have discussed this at great length, and agree on the basis of the terms (sometimes disagreeing on some semantics or on terms, but well). Admin tools should indeed not be used to control content, we fully agree on that. But I disagree that page protection, blocking people and blacklisting links is 'controlling content'! The only 'content' that is blocked by blacklisting a link is the external link in the external links section. I still insist that blacklisting a link does not disable adding content to the body, and referencing it to the material on the blacklisted site (pointy example, but again, if I say, that I said in revid 283836766 on this wiki "I am not disputing, anywhere, that these sites contains good information and with the copies that are there there are no copyright issues.", then you are able to confirm that; it is more work, but it does not make it untrue, unverifyable etc.!) You only can't link to it anymore (in references, the link is a convenience link, not a absolute must, though it is certainly helpful (and I am talking about content space, not about talkpage discussions, yes, it also hampers discussion on talkpages!!). Also, it is not the end, specific links can still be whitelisted where needed. Blacklisting hence slows down the editing, and makes people think about what they add, and 'forces' discussion, but I do not believe that it really controls content. --Dirk Beetstra 09:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

~~Proposals by User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~The purpose of talk pages~~
~~1) The purpose of talk pages is to communicate. Users should make sufficient effort so that others can understand them.~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Yah. Talk pages are not for obfuscation. Jehochman 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed; paraphrased from the policy page WP:TALK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
~~Long, rambling messages~~
~~2) Talk page comments should be concise. ~~Posts longer than 100 words should be shortened.~~ Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood.~~
Comment by Arbitrators:
100 words limit per talkpage post? Geez, if someone enforces that against me, the only question will be should I retire, or just type every fifth word? (How long has that been in the guideline, anyway? Quite seriously, I've never noticed or heard of it before.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I read all of what Abd wrote below. It was not excessive in length, and I can see the point he is making and I agree with him when he says that "Longer messages may be clearer than shorter ones, as well as the reverse." I agree that some of what Abd writes is too long for most people to read (I've failed to finish reading some of his posts), but you (SBHB) jumping on his reply as an example of what you dislike is a clear example of setting someone up to fail. It is what is said, not how it is said that is important, even if there are problems with how it is said. Carcharoth (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Don't waste words. Jehochman 12:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two types of writing: exploration or detailed examination, and polemic. Polemic, to be effective, should be as brief as possible. Discussion, however, will vary in length, depending on many factors. When a writer has a lot to say, and only a little time, the length of comments expands rapidly. With more time and more polemic intent, the writer will boil it down. A very few people may be capable of highly effective, immediate, and concise writing, but every writer I've known who was brief and cogent spent hours polishing text. Tl;dr is fine as a reality, but often "tl;dr," as a comment, is a sarcastic expression of "I glanced at this, I don't like it, and responding would take more effort than I care to expend." Reading long, rambling, or off-topic posts on a Talk page is optional, and an editor sacrifices no rights by ignoring them. Where they truly damage communication, refactoring, such as using collapse boxes, is an option, and when done without hostility, can be effective. Invited to condense or summarize comments, I will almost always do it, and sometimes other editors kindly summarize what I've written. So, to boil this down: Should implies a goal. To communicate a conclusion, brevity is the soul of wit. Longer messages may be clearer than shorter ones, as well as the reverse. To explore a topic, to develop rapport -- with sympathetic editors --, greater length may be required. Proposed principle is true, but one-sided and unnecessary. --Abd (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing an example of the type of commentary that is of concern here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Please, someone inform me if threaded responses by non-parties in the "Comment by parties" sections are allowed. I'd say it shouldn't be, there is a reason for giving parties a special section, we have far more at stake. This response may be removed if the comment above is, or moved with it, presumably to the "Comment by others" section. Or SBHB is welcome to declare himself a party, and gain the privilege and risk with the rest of us. Maybe responding in the "parties" section should be considered joining as a party! --Abd (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. Taken near-verbatim from the policy page WP:TALK. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Struck the "100 words" bit per NYB. The important point is "Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood"; the 100-words specification is not central to the principle. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nyb, although I agree about the 100 word limit, I think you ought to still take the rationale on-board (as stated at 03:04) and form a principle to reflect these views, which are, relatively widely held. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Widely-held views can be dead wrong, and not infrequently are. The real question is what happens when these views are carefully examined in an environment where arguments are compiled and compared in an organized way, which frequently doesn't happen outside of ArbComm or perhaps RfC (content or user -- and too often RfCs become free-for-alls that fail to address the core issue). Genuine consensus, the agreement of the knowledgeable, is truly powerful, and quiets disputes, but we too often short-circuit the process and assume consensus from which part of the crowd is shouting louder. --Abd (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't favor specific arbitrary limits, but in general people should try to be concise; we're not lawyers being paid by the hour to read and understand this stuff, but people doing it in our own spare time. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

~~Proposals by User:Coppertwig~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Dispute resolution is not for punishment~~
1) Dispute resolution is for resolving disputes about how things are to be done in the present and future. It is not for punishment, either by the community or by an individual, for things someone has done in the past.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Agreed. Note: desysopping is one possible outcome of this process, though not the desired one on my part. Desysopping isn't punitive, and it is only in order when conditions lead to a reasonable fear that an administrator may abuse the tools in the future. Administrative status is a special privilege, and properly retained only by those who, among many other characteristics, are capable of understanding recusal policies and have not shown unapologetic disregard of them. --Abd (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
~~Content policies are enforced by editors~~
2) Enforcement of the core content policies often involves nuances and requires judgement. Editors often differ in opinion as to whether a given edit conforms to the content policies, requiring discussion to resolve the dispute. Content policies and guidelines are best enforced by discussion among multiple editors, calling on broader community consensus through established channels when necessary. Content policies are normally not enforced through use of administrative tools except by uninvolved administrators acting on community consensus.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Agreed. Clear. --Abd (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
~~No use of admin tools by parties in a dispute~~
3) Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
Yes, but I am not sure how this is relevant. Jehochman 12:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Jehochman, eh? This truly worries me. If Jehochman doesn't understand this, and there is in fact some allegation here by another editor that he doesn't, perhaps the Committee should consider that. However, I know Jehochman, and expect he will clarify this; he's been attempting to protect me from sanctions and I certainly don't want to go after his bit, and he would be far, far from the worst offender whose name has come up in this case! In fact, I don't even want to go after JzG's admin bit, I just want what I've asked for all along, most clearly in the RfC: an acknowledgment of error by him that then forms a foundation for continuing to trust him as an administrator. If he can't do that, this is quite worrisome as to future behavior, and ArbComm would need to consider how to proceed. --Abd (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Proposed. From Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Misuse of administrative tools. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
To Jehochman: What do you mean, you're not sure how it's relevant? This is the whole heart of the issue: the question is whether JzG has violated this policy by using admin tools in such a way as to advance a position in a content dispute in which he was involved. You might try to argue that he has not violated this policy, but I don't see how you can miss its relevance. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposals by Abd~~
~~Proposed principles~~
4.5) (was 3.2) The spam blacklist is properly used to prevent the massive addition of links to Misplaced Pages without review and consensus. As such, any addition of links, whether the individual links are proper or not, may result in blacklisting, if other means of addressing the problem prove inadequate. Content arguments, such as "not reliable source," are irrelevant to blacklisting itself, except that "reliable source" may be an argument for delisting or whitelisting specific pages. If there is no continued danger of widespread unexamined link addition, prior blacklisting, whether proper or not, should be irrelevant to a delisting request. In addition, the blacklist may be used to prevent linking to sites hosting malware, or for other emergency protective measures. Where a site is blacklisted, sites related to it may be blacklisted as well to prevent URL-hopping as an avoidance measure.
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
Comment by parties:
This was proposed as a further version of the proposed principle above, it was struck by Jehochman, suggesting I start my own section, so here it is. Beetstra commented on it above as "totally disagree," (later struck) but it's blatantly clear that blacklisting process does not normally consider whether or not links are actually improper; the standard evidence consists of lists of editors and lists of edits, and does not examine whether or not the links are actually appropriate, and it would be impossible to make that judgment in the time available to blacklist administrators. I mentioned Lyrikline.org above. This was a case where links were added, slowly at first, to many articles on poets with pages hosted at the web site. The user did register here (home wiki was apparently de.wikipedia.org) as Lyriker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I have yet to find an actually inappropriate link added by Lyriker. The article Lyriker created was speedied, but, when I discovered this case as part of my investigation of JzG and blacklisting practice, I was able to get the article restored, and I've slowly begun adding back in links. Was the blacklisting of lyrikline.org proper? I think so! Lyriker was adding way too many links.

I added some text about additional uses consistent with blacklist limitations, as suggested by Beetstra. Beetstra, in a comment he later struck, did not seem to understand that links which are totally unreliable sources (like blog.myspace.com) represents content control and judgment; if a notable person or group has a blog there, known to not be impersonation, a link might well be usable in a biography of this person or article on the group. The blacklist was clearly designed to be used only as an extreme measure; if it's going to be used to control content (i.e., blog.myspace.com), then consensus should be found on this that is broader than that of a handful of blacklist administrators and volunteers who are more concerned about spam than about content. However, blog.myspace.com isn't exactly blacklisted. Myspace.com is. The original addition was, apparently, at the request of Jimbo. We have quite a few whitelisted entries, but most editors won't bother to whitelist, they just won't use a link, or will nowiki it, so the whitelistings prove only that a few usages were considered legitimate. My guess is that many more would exist if not for the blacklisting. Would these be "abusive"? Some would. But source abuse occurs all the time, the blacklist can do little about it. Better: bot discovery of usage of a "commonly-abused but not linkspammed" site, creating a project list, and leading to efficient examination and clearance of specific usages, or removal, which wouldn't take administrator time. This would be a focus on content, not on spam. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Respond to Beetstra: I wrote, about finding no inappropriate usages by Lyriker of Lyrikline.org links, "as far as I knew," and I've looked at many of them. If Beetstra is willing to waste his time to find one that isn't at least reasonable, he's welcome. There was one usage on de.wikipedia I noticed, it was, I think, the only one reverted there before Lyrik (the de user) gave up, by an admin there who didn't like the link; since I considered it a good link, I discussed it in Talk both on de and on our parallel article on Shona language and then added the links back with no opposition. Which proves little, except that, since what I've done on this is quite visible, (Beetstra reverted one of my additions to de.wikipedia, then apparently thought better of it and reverted himself), it's probably not really bad. As to what the list was designed for not necessarily limiting current practice, perhaps, but don't you think that when there is mission creep for a software feature, it should be widely discussed? My point about design was that the designers knew that this would be a dangerous tool, that it could warp content. Beetstra seems to be a bit naive about how content is actually created. If an editor wants to use a site, very few editors will go to the trouble of whitelisting just for one link. It took weeks to get the first link to lenr-canr.org whitelisted. All that for one link? Why did I bother? Because I saw that there was more at stake than one link, that's why, there are thousands of possible links, my guess, being blacklisted. (Start with blogspot.myspace.com!) I know of several hundred very reasonable links to lyrikline.org, plus possibly several hundred articles that might be created with information from that site. The community confirmed my position, and I think that the implications of this have yet to sink in for some.

Beetstra has elsewhere alleged that cross-wiki addition of links to 'pedias of languages other than the interface languages of lyrikline.org were inappropriate (Lyrik/Lyriker and known same-user IP did this). That's a content judgment best made at the 'pedia in question. I know that there are many links here, on articles about poets who write in other language than English, to non-English web sites, and there seems to be no guideline against this. When I want to read a site in a language I don't know, I just use Google translation, and I expect that many people who don't read English use such tools; however, I also would guess that many (most?) internet users the world over do read English, though I'm sure that is also shifting. My point: it's a content question being enforced with administrative tools (in this case, on meta).

As to redirect sites, that's also an obvious exception, because they can (and would be) used to bypass the blacklist, easily. We could come up with a comprehensive list, I'm fairly sure, such that additional exceptions would be rare. Remember, I didn't want to resolve this at ArbComm! Nevertheless, a finding here does not suspend WP:IAR, it simply becomes a tad more difficult to abuse.

It may not be obvious, but I favor easy blacklisting when needed, combined with easier delisting and especially single-page whitelisting. One of the obstacles: once a site is listed, and if it is proposed that it be delisted and that there is no reason to believe that it will be again spammed, the argument is given: of course it's not being abused, because it's blacklisted! With lyrikline.org, the vast majority of links were being added by a single individual, who stopped when warned, was blocked anyway, and who, on de.wikipedia, actually started removing the links he had added. Nevertheless, lyrikline is a site that would be fairly hard to use abusively and it's beyond me why the many attempts to delist it at meta have been rejected. De.wikipedia, after being refused delisting, went ahead and whitelisted the whole site. Beetstra, here, whitelisted the English language interface, in response to my single-link request (a previous single-link whitelist request here had been denied, and the editor simply gave up, in fact, it was seeing this that led me down the trail of lyrikline).

Comment by others:
This combines principles, please keep it simple. This is better split in a principle like 'the blacklist is to stop abuse' (already above) and something like 'the blacklist is not for blacklisting of reliable sources' (also somewhere above, and well, it has been done already, blog.myspace.com was blacklisted for not being a reliable source, not for being spammed or added massively). Moreover, 'massive' is a) a judgement call, and b) links have been blacklisted which were not added massively (redirect sites).

No need to drag lyrikline into this, Abd. I don't know what you are trying to proof with that, except if you do an analysis of all regexes in this way. And what the blacklist is designed for does not have to reflect current practice. --Dirk Beetstra 18:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I support this concept. The blacklist is a blunt instrument which should be sharply limited to prevent improper "mission creep" where it ends up being used to circumvent editorial decisions on individual articles and impose the viewpoint of one clique on everybody. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Suppport per Dan T. I think it's better not to split it as Beetstra suggests: to me, it's essentially a single concept, like "drink your juice in the kitchen, not in the livingroom". Abd's wording properly takes into account the fact that different editors will have different opinions as to what is a "reliable source". Beetstra, I think Abd is mentioning Lyriker as an example of a situation where the links themselves are actually good content, but blacklisting is nevertheless "proper" (according to Abd) because of the speed of addition of links without review and consensus; this illustrates the divorce between the definition of linkspamming, and content decisions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
~~Proposals by User:Z~~
~~Proposed principles~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of Proposed principle}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~

~~Proposed findings of fact~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed finding of fact}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed remedies~~
~~Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed remedy}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Proposed enforcement~~
~~Template~~
~~1) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~2) {text of proposed enforcement}~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Analysis of evidence~~
~~Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~Template~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~
~~General discussion~~
~~Comment by Arbitrators:~~
~~Comment by parties:~~
~~Comment by others:~~