Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FayssalF (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 10 March 2010 (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/2/0): decline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:12, 10 March 2010 by FayssalF (talk | contribs) (→Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/2/0): decline)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Durova   9 March 2010 {{{votes}}}
Elizabeth II   9 March 2010 {{{votes}}}
Malik Shabazz   6 March 2010 {{{votes}}}
Gibraltar   5 March 2010 {{{votes}}}
Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare Motions 1 March 2010 {{{votes}}}
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 15 January 2025
Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Durova

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


Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Durova:
  • PeterSymonds:
  • Rlevse:
  • Blurpeace:
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

I left Misplaced Pages over harassment by Durova. I'm only willing to return if sufficient sunlight is placed upon the harassment that she cannot effectively continue it.

However, Durova has many friends willing to suppress information about her. User:Rlevse has abused oversight to remove negative information about her, in clear violation of WP:OVERSIGHT, which does not allow the removal of links to off-wiki descriptions of the harassment, with fair-use quotes.

On Commons, her friend Blurpeace uses fraudulent copyright claims.

On Misplaced Pages, the moment a conversation begins going against her, she merely has to ask for it to be archived, and one of her friends will step in to do so.

Much of the harassment, while entirely Misplaced Pages related, happened off-line. The clearest on-wiki harassment I've found is , which is not a direct link, for reasons that will be clear upon seeing what she attempted to pull.

On , she makes accusations against me, and when challenged to substantiate them, me even giving permission for her to quote them, provided she does so in full, she simply begins repeatedly asking for the thread to be closed.

Durova had been continually hounding me over tiny issues for months: writing an article on sound restoration for the signpost, when she wanted to do one; making a joke page with another contributor she disliked, and then, when I politely pointed out a bizarre decision by her in a set nomination, here, she cursed me out for 15 minutes on Skype, said "Fuck you, troll" about 10 times in said conversation. The link to it is http://wikidwatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-to-avoid-wikipedia.html - I will point out again that there is NO POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS BEING OVERSIGHTED under WP:OVERSIGHT.

In this egregious attack, she vowed, because I made a polite comment about a strange restoration choice:

  • To prevent me getting the scanner she had promised to arrange through Misplaced Pages grant, which was necessary for me continuing work.
  • To keep me from working on Tropenmuseum items.
  • An implied threat to keep my name out of a Tropenmuseum exhibition, for which she had got large numbers of us to do major restoration work on Vickeboons. This exhibition seems to have disappeared; while she did get access to Tropenmuseum material for herself, the exhibition was meant to happen sometime in 2009, and apparently either never existed, or was abandoned when she got what she wanted.

Furthermore, had she merely pulled this stunt at a neutral time, it might've been bad enough. What she actually did was pull it three days after I had confided to her a severe trauma that had just happened to me.

On the ANI thread, Durova claimed it had been edited. It has not, and the moment she was requested to substantiate this, and gave her permission to post logs that justified other claims she made, she asked for the thread to be closed. I have asked people who were there at the time to review it, and Durova is, of course, welcome to use her logs to point out anything she believes was changed.

I encourage the Arbcom to take this case, because in any other medium, Durova will simply get her friends to attack me, shut down the thread, or abuse oversight, as has been seen throughout this discussion. Shoemaker's Holiday 21:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To Sir Fozzie: Durova works in every part of Misplaced Pages I'm interested in working in. The harassment was severe; I am unable to quote as much of the logs as I'd like to under fair use, but if it's accepted, I'll go through and e-mail the full logs of such harassment to the Arbcom. I cannot return without sunlight being shined on this issue: The ANI thread made it clear that any harassment by Durova will not be dealt with, because Durova has a group of friends willing to shut down any discussion by attacking me. There is also an issue with abuse of oversight tools. I do not believe Durova will stop her harassment - I do believe she'll keep it subtle - and so, I cannot return to Misplaced Pages for anything but things like this until it's dealt with.

Per Privatemusings, I'll point out I stopped editing Misplaced Pages pretty much completely five months ago, and have only just now felt up to attempting to deal with it. Should nothing be done, I shall leave again permanently. Shoemaker's Holiday 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To Sir Fozzie again: I am in no way asking that Durova be forbidden to continue work on Misplaced Pages. However, I need to have some means of protection. Even a simple "Durova is cautioned that..." would be enough that, should she continue subtle harassment, I would not have to go through situations like - if I may point to the ANI thread - Staxringold insisting I was delusional, because "Durova wouldn't do something like that", and me having a very hard time defending myself because Rlevse was oversighting my evidence that Durova had, in fact, done so. Given that most of the harassment happened on Skype, although they directly relate to Misplaced Pages, a goodly amount of the evidence will need to be submitted through e-mail. Shoemaker's Holiday 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional links regarding Durova's harassment (on-wiki):

She has a habit of taking discussions I've started, and insisting they be closed, letting problems fester. For instance, in January last year, I had problems with a group of people constantly attacking me at Commons Featured pictures. She constantly sought to prevent anything being done about them, as can be seen in the sample diffs below:

This was typical of a whole set of problems. Forgive me for using commons: It's far easier to find stuff there. The trouble is, the on-wiki harassment's been fairly subtle - her sweeping into a discussion I've opened, complaining about how she wasn't notified of a discussion that involved me being attacked or having a problem, then saying that, in the interest of reducing drama, it should be closed. Another example: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive541#Wadester16 . In the meantime, the stress caused by all the incidents continues to build, and she continues to block any attempts of mine to end the stress, ending in me finally getting completely stressed out. And that's precisely the sort of subtle harassment where, without the harassment being on record, can be carried on indefinitely, and effectively. As such, having it out is necessary, as a public record will then exist which can be pointed to if she tries it again.

Perhaps the best evidence is in Durova's commentary on the recent ANI thread: She makes gross accusations against me, and, immediately upon being asked to substantiate them, asks for the thread to be closed. This allows her to slime me, but the moment I reply, she gets the thread archived so noone gets to read the rebuttal of her accusations, and see her dodge the request to substantiate.

Shoemaker's Holiday 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

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

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

Statement by Privatemusings

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

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

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

Statement by JzG

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

Request by PeterSymonds

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

Statement by Juliancolton

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

Statement by Mitchazenia

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

Statement by Mbz1

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

Statement by Blurpeace

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/2/0)

  • Recuse SirFozzie (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Recuse But may participate in a non arb role with evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Shoemaker's Holiday, you are stating here and above that "the worst of the harassment happened over Skype. All such evidence is censored." I am deeply concerned that such a thing could be censored. But then, why have it on-wiki if it happened on skype?! Censorship or —whatever one would call it— doesn't change anything. A friendly note to all parties involved: You used to be very good friends and worked together to enhance the encyclopedia. That was your objective back then (I was invited once to Not the Misplaced Pages Weekly which was hosted by Durova and yourself on Skype itself). What changed? Focus on that objective and forget about your personal ones. We appreciate both your works but I believe the best approach is to handle it wisely between you two. This cannot be arranged by an ArbCom decision at the time being. Try formal or informal mediation first. -- FayssalF - 01:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth II

Initiated by DrKiernan (talk) at 08:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

Editors participating at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

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

Statement by DrKiernan

I would like to request guidance from the Committee on how to resolve discussion on the title of the article on Queen Elizabeth II. Since the article was created, there have been periodic disputes over the choice of article name. In the past, consensus clearly favoured "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", but recently opinion has shifted towards shortening and simplifying the title to "Elizabeth II".

Date of discussion Editors supporting requested move Editors opposing requested move
February 2005 2 13
June 2005 1 13
July 2005 2 15
July 2009 9 13
July 2009 0 9
July 2009 1 8
January 2010 18 15
February 2010 24 11 (at least 3 of whom actually support a move)

Though there has been a shift in opinion, the page remains at its initial location because internal wikipedia processes favour the status quo. As raised in essays such as User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia is broken and failing, the mantra of consensus can preserve the status quo, even in the face of majority opinion. Polls are rightly denigrated for article content, because there are other ways to develop article content by balancing or weighting different viewpoints. However, reaching a compromise on an article's title is more difficult, and often impossible. Unfortunately, the precedents of Talk:Gdansk/Vote and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names appear to show that intractable and recurrent move disputes are often determined by a majority vote.

The Committee may choose to close this request, preferably by some simple mechanism such as a motion, in several ways. Four of these are:

  1. Decline it. This is obviously unhelpful. The Committee is here to help resolve disputes not to prolong or ignore them.
  2. Ask that editors continue searching for "consensus", either together or through a mediator. I consider this solution impractical, as the issue has already been discussed at length and there is little room for compromise when discussing an article's title.
  3. Ask that editors develop another form of poll to determine the article title. This would appear to be unnecessary as we have already held two polls of one form or another within the last two months, both of which favour the move.
  4. Determine that consensus on the article title has changed and move the page. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by BobbyTables

The Arbitration Committee will decline this...they only have jurisdiction over user conduct, and your request is a content dispute. I think what you're looking for is Request for Comment. Bobby Tables (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/2)

  • Decline - ArbCom tries not to hear content issues. Try RfC or something similar. SirFozzie (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: An arbitration case is not the customary or best path forward here, but I understand the filing party's wonderment about what is. I would prefer if we can make some form of positive contribution to resolving this issue (even if only advisory) rather than just sending it away. Awaiting further statements with this goal in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - DrKieran, yes... there are precedents as you state. Ireland naming dispute is a good example of how a resolution is reached (content dispute). It should be noted that there was a bit of a direct ArbCom involvement in later stages but I don't believe ArbCom is capable of going beyond that. My suggestion - the first thing to do: Please discuss the possibility of following that example. If you agree then ArbCom would be glad to help you. -- FayssalF - 23:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment and Decline Ireland and WP:ARBMAC2 may help as well as RFC. Decline as an arbcase. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz

Initiated by Pantherskin (talk) at 11:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Statement by Pantherskin

A few weeks ago I created the article Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov. Two days after creation the article was discovered by the admin User:Malik Shabazz who took an interest in the article, added a speedy deletion tag and several other tags. What makes me wonder here is that previously I have interacted with User:Malik Shabazz in a less than enjoyable way during the discussion on the Richard Tylman article. There he strongly defended the current state and the existent of the Richard Tylman article, whereas I was on the other side of the conflict. Malik also strongly defended User:Poeticbent who created the article and is the subject of the article.

It was this interaction at the Richard Tylman article that makes me wonder why Malik discovered the article about N.S. Borisov, created by me. He discovered the article two days after creation, after it was long gone from the newly created article log. It was an article outside of the subject area Malik Shabazz edits. The tagging was excessive and the speedy deletion nomination clearly inappropriate given our notability guidelines. During the ANI discussion Malik claimed to have been unaware of our notability guideline regarding academics, and he refused to explain how he found out about this article.

What is suspicious here is not only that he discovered this obscure article and excessively tagged it (plus templated me on my talk page), but also that he implied that I am identical with the subject of the article - effectively outing me (see ). What can shed light on the ominous outing attempt of Malik are the oversighted edits at which suggest off-wiki communication between User:Poeticbent and User:Malik Shabazz. This edit also suggest that User:Off2riorob was involved (as a recipient) in the email communication about the article created by me.

Somewhat related, User:Malik Shabazz also seems to use his admin tools when he is quite involved in the content dispute.

Reply to Collect - you raise a point only indirectly related to this arbitration request. But both editors you call two different people are the ones who are participating in off-wiki communication with User:Poeticbent. Also note that I explained why this is an issue on the talk page, with no actual replies or explanations forthcoming by the the two editors in question. But to reiterate - this arbitration request is not about the Richard Tylman article and the off-wiki coordination and canvassing by User:Poeticbent, but about what I perceive as harassment by User:Malik Shabazz.

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Pantherskin doth protest too much. His article was a two-sentence stub that didn't assert Borisov's importance. It did have puffery ("leading expert"), and its only source was Borisov's c.v. So I tagged it for speedy deletion. Pantherskin removed the CSD tag, which is a no-no, and now he complains that I left him a message about it.

Honestly, I don't know where Pantherskin comes up with these things. I never wrote that I was unaware of our notability guideline regarding academics; I wrote that I was unaware of some other editors' interpretation of WP:CSD#A7 as it relates to academics.

With respect to Pantherskin and AN/I, I refused to respond to his Chekist interrogation. This is more of the same. Pantherskin is a bully, and he is trying to use a bigger club than AN/I to whack me.

As far as protecting the article, that was a mistake. I intentionally protected the version favored by Pantherskin and his comrade-in-arms Varsovian, and not the version I favored, but I shouldn't have protected the article at all. I should have asked an uninvolved administrator to review the situation. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Collect

Well, involved only insofar as I !voted on the Tylman AfD. The edit history there clearly shows a problem with Pantherskin, and Malik is not the only one who has reverted him a few times now. The AfD is over, but Pantherskin repeatedly seems to be fighting the same issue. at 08:04 06 Mar, 12:25 05 Mar, reverted by two different people. Collect (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Nsk92

I urge the ArbCom to accept this case to look at the conduct of all editors concerned. The roots of this dispute go back to the EEML case if not even further back. Some of the relevant recent threads are Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18 (DRV for the Tylman AfD close), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#Uninvolved eyes needed at the Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov article. I have participated in the Tylman AfD and then in the DRV discussion (I initiated the DRV), as well as in the Borisov AfD. It does appear to me that Malik's actions in relation to the Borisov article were in retaliation for the Tylman AfD. In fact, IMO Borisov is considerably more notable than Tylman, yet Malik argued for keeping the Tylman article and deleting the Borisov article. I also believe that CSD tagging an article for someone who is a full professor at Moscow State University was clearly inappropriate, as was Pantherskin's removal of the CSD tag from the article he created. I also do find Malik's comment in the ANI thread, mentioned above, problematic. He presented thinly veiled insinuations that Pantherskin and Borisov are either the same person or are professionally related; I can't imagine what kind of basis he might have had for making such insinuations, but in any event that was inappropriate. During the Borisov AfD one of the participating admins, User:NuclearWarfare, received an e-mail, purportedly from Borisov, asking that the article be deleted. The circumstances regarding this e-mail remain murky (it was not submitted through OTRS), and I think the ArbCom should look more closely at the matter and see if the e-mail indeed came from Borisov. It is clear from looking at the Borisov AfD that the article was deleted primarily because of Borisov's request. I find it rather unfortunate that an article about a reasonably prominent academic, with no contentious or negative material, fell victim to this conflict. As Malik himself admits, he should not have protected the Tylman page where he himself was an active dispute participant. On the other hand, Pantherskin should have disengaged from dealing with the Tylman article after the Tylman AfD and DRV were concluded (in particular, I don't think that notability tags for an article that survived an AfD are appropriate). The Tylman article really needs to be left in peace for a while and the dispute participants need to try to stay away from each other and to refocus their editing activities on other articles. The conflict has been prolonged and highly acrimonious and I think that ArbCom's intervention is needed in sorting things out. Nsk92 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that threaded discussion is usually not done at RfAr, but I'd like to clarify one point. Per a request of another administrator on February 4, I forwarded all emails to Risker, a currently sitting arbitrator. I will leave everything else to her, as I really do not have the time nor the inclination to get involved with this RfAr. NW (Talk) 04:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/3)

  • Pending Awaiting more info on user behavior issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure the user conduct issues rise to the level where Arbitration is the best solution, I would generally like to see more then one ANI thread, but I will await further information before formally voting. SirFozzie (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As I read it I believe that this can be sorted out via conventional channels. However, Nsk92 and NW's statements are prompting me to pause a little bit. Waiting for more input. -- FayssalF - 02:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline - There is a real possibility that this could be resolved below ArbCom. Steve Smith (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not certain whether arbitration, some lesser step in dispute resolution, or these editors walking away from each other is the correct answer here, so I am going to hold off and see if things trend positively or negatively in the next few days. In the meantime, I would observe with respect to the "outing" issue that as has been noted in the past, "Misplaced Pages's policies allowing anonymous editing while discouraging conflicts of interest create a tension that necessarily is imperfectly resolved. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high degree of sensitivity to the competing concerns." It may well be that Malik Shabazz had absolutely no intention of engaging in "outing" as a form of harassment when he made his comment about the possible author of the article in question; if that is the case, he should be more sensitive in speculating about authorships in the future, but this is not the type of "outing" that should result in automatic and serious sanctions. On the other hand, I readily find that his reference to "Chekist interrogation" in his statement above is objectionable in reference to another user and should not be repeated. I ask the parties whether they would agree to a voluntary interaction moratorium from one another. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline for now as something that could be handled through lower channels, perhaps in particular a user conduct RfC for Pantherskin and/or an admin RfC for Malik. This could also very likely be resolved by having these editors leave each other alone from here on, as NYB suggests. Either way, there don't appear to have been enough attempts by the community to resolve this, and there don't appear to be any emergency situations here that would merit us leapfrogging over those steps. Hersfold 23:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Decline Try RFC for one or both or medidation first. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Initiated by EyeSerene at 12:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

The above is a representative sample taken from the latest four (of 17) talk page archives.

Statement by EyeSerene

There has been a long-term dispute on Gibraltar-related articles (mainly Gibraltar itself, but also to a lesser extent History of Gibraltar, Disputed status of Gibraltar and possibly Self-governing colony). The dispute revolves around Gibraltar's status* and claims of both pro-Gibraltan and pro-Spanish POV pushing. I came relatively late to this via an ANI thread (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive582#Gibraltar, November 2009), but have noticed similar threads appearing at ANI with depressing regularity. Searching the archives for AN and ANI returns 41 matches; discounting the duplicates and false positives, by my (rough) count we still have more than 30 threads dating back three years. The latest is here (current as of 5 March 2010) archived here (amended 08:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)); as can be seen, recent developments have included WP:OUTING issues over WP:COI concerns. Partly due to this privacy concern and partly due to the long-running and apparently intransigent nature of the dispute, I feel this has now escalated beyond what can be dealt with at ANI. I ask the committee to consider taking this case on, if only to clear the decks in this area to allow productive editors to contribute without every edit becoming a battle. EyeSerene 13:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: Due to my unfamiliarity with much of the dispute's history I have listed the involved parties above pretty much indiscriminately based on article and talk page contribution. Many of those parties have and still are trying to work productively to reach consensus, so no implication is intended by my inclusion or omission of a name on the list. I ask that both the listed editors and the members of Arbcom, should they accept this case, forgive my lack of precision.

*For those not familiar with the subject, Gibraltar is a British overseas territory in the Mediterranean claimed by Spain.

Note 2: I've just been informed that a previous arbitration case, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Gibraltarian, was heard relating to this area. However, because it deals specifically with one editor I don't think it affects anything I've written above. EyeSerene 13:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Justin

This filing is rather premature, it can still be sorted out at AN/I, if there is a will to do so.

Also a number of simply innocent bystanders have been caught in the crossfire. Its got nothing to do with Gibmetal77, Narson or Willdow. None of whom have caused a problem.

I would also tend to exclude Richard Keatinge, as although some of the things he has done has made the situation worse he sought to mediate the dispute. I'd also tend to exclude Cremallera as in the main, I think he was an innocent who got caught up in this. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would add that there have been repeated attempts to link User:Gibnews and User:Gibraltarian. They've been repeatedly investigated and found to be false, I question why it has been raised again. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 14:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A personal request

Due to a family emergency its unlikely I'd be able to submit the full statement I'd begun to prepare for a short while. I'll endeavour to do so by the weekend but would request that I be a allowed a short stay of execution to do so. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Red Hat of Pat Ferrick

Please, please take this on, including anyone that wants to be part of it. There are serious and long running problems in this article space concerning POV and COIs that need to be aired and adjucated beyond what other dispute resolutions can provide. These have boiled over into interpersonal spats making constructive editing and adherence to policies impossible. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to request for more information by Newyorkbrad
  • (1) improper user conduct vs good-faith disagreements - improper user conduct - behaviours need to be changed. Let me know if I should provide details. It's now impossible to have a "good faith disagreement" on the page as you are always assumed to be acting in bad faith.
  • (2) disregard of consensus vs inability to reach a consensus - it's impossible to reach consensus that a consensus has been reached - ie both are a problem
  • (3) further dispute resolution short of arbitration - there is more than a "dispute" going on here. The article is under the de facto control of one, lately two pro-Gibraltar editors (one of whom is Gibraltarian and active in Gibraltar politics in real life) who use it as a platform to "defend" Gibraltar in cyberspace, and I and another editor have WP:COI concerns in that regard.
  • (4) remedies - I would like explored the idea of topic bans, plus a permanent ban on use of the suite of websites that one particular editor has set up as sources or external links, if the COI allegations are upheld. (Note: providing the full COI evidence will WP:OUT the editor concerned, but without seeing it the full extent can't be understood.)
NB I would welcome having my contributions scrutinised as a part of this process.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The pro-Gibraltar editors I refer to above are User:Gibnews (who has the alleged COI issues) and User:Justin A Kuntz. The statement by Gibnews (since modified ) is a perfect demonstration of why we need this arbitration: he has just confirmed my words above about him using the article as a "platform to "defend" Gibraltar in cyberspace". This has been going on for too long now (since the end of 2005). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

:::Question is it acceptable to modify one's comments in this manner after others have responded to them? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Richard Keatinge

Per Red Hat I feel that authoritative arbitration is the only way forward here. I have no previous connection with this page or Gibraltar itself, but I responded on 9th December 2009 to a RfC from Atama (following failed mediation and months of argument). I tried to push forward a peace process, and after much covering of old ground we seemed to have a weary consensus and to be able to move on. A revert war ensued, and subsequent discussions have gone round the same old circle again. Nationalism, incompetence, the Last Word, straightforward personality differences, irritation, and incivility have all played their parts in this waste of time. I will say that I feel there is one and only one editor whose improvement or absence is essential to enable the discussion to progress. All others, however strong their opinions, seem open to rational debate. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Gordonofcartoon

I've added myself as an outside editor who has had recent contact with Gibraltar article topics via WP:COIN. I strongly support arbitration, on grounds of the time this has been going on and all the previous attempts at solving it. As others have said, the surface problem is the extreme toxicity of discussion - collapse of good faith, general sniping, etc - that a long-running dispute has led to. But under that, there's a deeper problem that these articles' agenda is entirely controlled by a core group of users so locked in a regionalist dispute that it drives away any uninvolved editors; it's just too much hard work to get involved. With some regular participants of this dispute, I have no faith in their ability to see outside their bias and work by Misplaced Pages policies of verifiability and neutrality. There are also unresolved COI issues (which, much as I think they should be investigated, have led to overzealous investigation skating on the edge of WP:OUTING). But overall, having looked at previous discussions, I'd rate the core driving problem here as aggressive pro-Gibraltar regionalism and civil POV pushing and tendentious editing to that end. I don't see pro-Spanish regionalism as significant; I'd characterise it more that the pro-Gibraltar faction treats any source outside its worldview as pro-Spanish. I guess this could viewed as "good faith" in that it's a genuine perception of the subject, but if it permanently disrupts attempts to achieve WP:NPOV, it's not compatible with Misplaced Pages whatever the motive. I highly recommend Digwuren-style sanctions, and in some cases topic bans per WP:GREATWRONGS-style advocacy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - looking at the diffs provided by Ecemaml, this situation is more appalling than I thought. Gibnews trying to expunge from Misplaced Pages notable historical individuals from pre-British Gibraltar is astonishingly overt bias. I'm even more decided that a topic ban would be appropriate. Come on you "Recuse" guys - what is arbitration here for, if not to handle situations like this where everything else has been tried? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Narson

First of all, PfainUK (named above) is away from the computer for a few days so won't be able to respond (he dropped me an e-mail). I think there are pros and cons to this case being taken on. What incivility there is comes from, in most, the frustration over the inability to move forward. There are a couple of editors who constantly drift over the line and at least one editor whose actions do so on a semi-occasional basis. Certainly issues like the WP:OUTING campaign are of interest to Arbcom, but things like the discussion over the content isn't. And there is a question over how much of the former is due to the latter. I tried to mediate the dispute over christmas, though this quickly failed as the moratorium broke down and we went back to old accusations being dredged up by some. Ultimatly I fear the consequences of Arbcom would be, overall, to the negative. Admin can easily correct behaviour that goes over the line (as has been seen with Gibnews and Ecemaml) and the recent 0RR or 1RR on the article should be allowed to run for a while and see how it works. Thereare also editors who I consider to have some good potential should they be directed into wider involvement in the project who I fear would receive a brutal treatment at an ArbCom intervention. I remain relativly confident I have little to fear from ArbCom involvement, but would still urge the ArbCom to wait. If they do chose to run with it, I fear this will just add more drama to an already daft situation. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Edited to add that anyone saying that either 'side' (Really, this side thing is so not helpful, but I must bow to peer pressure in using it) is blameless and one side is responsible for everything or for the vast majority is entirely wrong. This is a pox on everyone's house and those who come here thinking they are blameless and the other side will be smited will more than likely get the odd bit of smiting themselves. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by JzG

In response to Newyorkbrad, this dispute is nationalist in nature, intractable and involves multiple users with varying degrees of problematic behaviour. My most recent involvement with it came with a war between supporters of two versions of the lead paragraph, one stating that Gibraltar is self-governing (based on a source which quoted the Governor-General as saying it was, in response to the UN stating it wasn't) and a version saying is was non-self-governing based on the UN saying so (which is, apparently, a result of lobbying from Spain). Since British Overseas Territory seemed to cover this well enough I removed the statement altogether, since the sources were to my mind equal and opposite. The result was an edit war in which, to my chagrin, I ended up blocked . So my view here is that anybody who gets sucked in who is not immediately in favour of one side or the other gets a rough ride from both sides, leading to a polarised and endless dispute. It is my view (as an Englishman) that this article is dominated by a clique of pro-British users who are significantly more adept at working our policies than the succession of indignant Spaniards who come by. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cremallera

Hi there. Thanks for the pointers Newyorkbrad, they've been helpful. To set a starting point somewhere, since October 2009 there have been 2 mediation attempts, at least 3 Requests for Comment, a 'moratorium' as previously stated by Narson and several AN/I threads, to no tangible gain. Frankly, nothing in the current climate makes me foresee a different outcome in the event of conducting further dispute resolution processes other than authoritative arbitration. The tone of the debate has always been uncomfortable, ranging from perennial and mostly one sided incivility to some of the most blatantly abusive personal attacks I've seen in Misplaced Pages (I raise some diffs in which I am not an involved party to illustrate my point: , , , , , ). No, I really wouldn't bet on informal dispute resolution anymore. Per Gordonofcartoon above, I'd suggest applying discretionary sanctions. Cremallera (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, when I speak of 'mostly one sided incivility' I am strictly refering to users Justin the Evil Scotman and Gibnews, who are indeed responsible for the vast majority of WP:NPA violations. It is not my intention to imply that the rest are faultless. Cremallera (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by gibnews

NPOV means describing things fairly not giving foreign irredentist propaganda an equal say about Gibraltar.

There has been a sustained attempt to cover up things, and to minimise the developed nature of Gibraltar's self-government because this threatens the Spanish claim based on the assertion Gibraltarians are not the genuine people of Gibraltar and have no say in their future. These are promulgated in the Spanish media today. (google 'Landaluce Gibraltar')

I have spent an unhealthy amount of time in the last year trying to keep the Gibraltar and associated articles truthful.

There has been a dishonest attempt to get me banned.

  • user:ecemaml has a long history of trying to make the articles more favourable to the Spanish position hopes to repeat his success in getting user:gibraltarian banned. He was blocked for extensive stalking of me in the past and recently for abusive behaviour. Otherwise, he is a good editor and an asset to wikipedia apart from pages on Gibraltar.
  • user:RHOPF has from his first involvement been confrontational and of late has tried to get me banned from editing using any methods available including lies that I am a sock. He has attempted to get two websites gibnet.com and gibnews.net used for cites banned simply because I helped set them up. This has involved extensive forum shopping. There is no suggestion that the third party content referenced on these sites has been tampered with. He has further removed large chunks of established content because 'he does not like it' his actions have been disruptive and abusive. He is now attacking on the article Gibraltarian people.

EXAMPLES

  1. Removal of the section about the conclusion of the IRA incusion. (even the Irish Republican editors accept this was OK)
  2. Removal of the two line mention of the death of General Władysław Sikorski in Gibraltar
  3. Removal of the section about Gibraltar winning its EU legal case on regional selectivity (Note: this was opposed by Spain and would have crippled the economy, the GoG considered it important enough to have declared a public holiday.)

Ban these two dissruptive editors from pages related to Gibraltar and normality will return. --Gibnews (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ecemaml

I support the arbitration of this case. IMHO the situation has deteriorated to the extreme in the last year. However, the roots of the problem may be traced back to late 2005. Here you have some samples of what has been going on for years:

  1. Racist comments aganist Spaniards
  2. Constant verbal abuse against those that does not follow a given POV (, , )
  3. Use of reversion as editorial tool (example fully described here)
  4. Countless conflicts (it's worthless to see this, as here there are no Spaniards involved)
  5. Insertion of false information to discredit sources (see here and compare to this)
  6. Absolute denial of NPOV as a given POV should be simply ignored (, ).
  7. Constant soapboxing (, )
  8. Misrepresentation of other editors' behaviour to discredit them (, compare this with this, not an example, I must admit)
  9. Productive and good faith editors being thrown away of these articles (as Asterion or ChrisO).
  10. Use of web sites managed by a given editor (gibnet.com) as a reliable source. Gibnews has openly claimed to be its webmaster (; although the diff is from an IP, 212.120.227.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the analysis of its editions, the timing and clarifies the issue); to control the publication of contents (); or to be its owner (, . Examples of its use are , , .
  11. Promotion of unknown organizations presented as reliable sources (... the same organization whose "report" is introduced here) which happens either not to exist (see and being a total invention (see this) or both things. Coordination in the use of such unreliable and, worse, invented, sources is obvious (see here)
  12. Absurd edit wars. The one described in . Considering the history of Gibraltar some notable Spanish guys born in Gibraltar were introduced in the section devoted to notable people born in Gibraltar (). My edition was removed as it was "ridiculous". Gibnews tried to speedy delete the persons listed (see here, here and here).
  13. A serious undeclared conflict of interest by one of the participants in this case. It has not been declared and can be not only a COI but a case similar to that of the Scientology in which Scientology members coordinated their actions to bias the Gibraltar-related articles. In this case, prominent members of organizations heavily involved in the political activity of Gibraltar and with virulent anti-Spanish agenda are taking part in this case. I've provided privately the info to the ArbCom. It's important to notice that such COI (or organized action) is one or the root causes of all the improper behaviours listed below.

My proposal is: banning of editing the articles listed by EyeSerene for two weeks; strict enforcement of 0RR; inmmediate block of anyone verbally abusing any of the participants, their countries or nationalities; inclusion of gibnet.com in the black list and one year block of the editor undeclaring his COI. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Imalbornoz

1) There are some examples of very improper misconduct in the article (for example, User:Justin A Kuntz has thrown very offensive insults accusing other editors -me amongst them- of having a "racist facist agenda" and calling them a "Fascist fuckwit", has reverted several times my comments in the article talk page, has accused me of being a sock-puppet and a meat-puppet...; User:Gibnews has threatened with legal action; on the other hand, I must say that they were driven by the tension in the discussion and have apologised afterwards), but that is not the worst problem. The worst problem, in my POV, is that outside users trying to obtain information from the WP Gib article will probably be getting very biased info, because of their attitude (Gibnews' and Justin's) trying to "protect" the article from editors with a "non Gibraltar nationalist" POV, by making it very long and difficult to un-POV some parts of the article: it has taken -so far- SEVEN months just try to make slight changes in only THREE sentences.

2) Mostly, it has been inability to reach consensus (even though there has been one time when there seemed to be consensus and Justin returned to change that, it seems that the consensus has been qualified as not straightforward by three editors).

3) I'm a very optimistic person, so I think that mediation maybe could work. But the truth is that it will require a very long and strong effort from the mediator (maybe more than any normal mediator is ready to dedicate). Also, I think that some very POVed editors (mainly Justin and Gibnews) should get some feedback about their attitude. In any case, arbitration has the highest probability to solve the problems, so it would be great if some arbitrators decided to get involved.

4) I would agree with discretionary sanctions.

Please, in any case, I would thank very much the involvement of arbitrators (to solve the problem in the article) and their feedback to all involved editors (including me) about their attitude and behaviour. Thank you very much. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Addenda about "issues here of improper user conduct" (previous comment was made in a hurry away from my own computer): What I mean is that the problem is mainly a case of some specific editors (Justin and Gibnews) resisting changes in "sensitive" (from a nationalist Gibraltarian POV) areas of the article way beyond what WP policy would support and (sometimes) showing an aggressive attitude. These behaviour and attitudes tend to drive away less involved editors and result in the "sensitive" areas being tilted towards a more Gibraltarian nationalistic POV. Some examples regarding attitudes (detailed evidence of behaviour would be too lengthy for this statement):

Statement by Beetstra

I've only be involved in this sideways, responding (a couple of times) to a blacklisting request for gibnet.com (discussion still active here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#gibnet.com (perm. link to current status)). I refused said blacklisting on the terms that there was not significant external link spamming (including reference spamming) going on, though I do agree, also on the basis of the reliable sources noticeboard discussion (archived, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_57#gibnet.com_.28separate_discussion_to_gibnews.net.29) that it is not a reliable source, that the site was not used optimally. At the moment of my first decline I found that the blacklisting would merely be on basis of unreliability, as other venues for stopping the abuse were, in my opinion, not exhausted (though I do agree with an analogy given in another discussion: sometimes a mosquito net is more efficient than swatting all the flies: pre-emptive blacklisting and forcing editors to request specific whitelisting would enforce people to think which sources to use)

Based on the first two specific link discussions that were held with me afterward (where Gibnews was involved in (re-)inserting the links), it appears that, at least some of, the site is replaceable with better sources.

In the blacklisting discussion discussion, and also afterwards on other places (my talk, e.g. see User_talk:Gibnews#Gibnet.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gibnews&oldid=348362994 perm. link to current status], User_talk:Beetstra/Archive_13#Gibnet.com and currently User_talk:Beetstra#Gibnet.com_2 / User_talk:Beetstra#gibnet_again (perm. link to current status) I have suggested Gibnews to be careful with citing that source, and when a specific source was questioned (and hence removed) to not re-insert the reference, but consider either to find a more reliable source for the statement involved, or to discuss re-insertion on the talkpage. I have also suggested that the unreliable sources were removed (preferably replaced with better, but where not possible, simply removed), and that statements which could not be properly referenced should be removed with the reference. I do assume, that even when the directive was aimed at a specific user, that other users do consider similarly the usefulness of a source, though for Gibnews there may be more reasons, as he does seem to be involved with the site in some way (per our conflict of interest guideline).

It must be said that Gibnews, in at least one occasion, did not follow that suggestion (suggestions: 1, 14:24, 18 February 2010 2, 13:23, 23 February 2010, 3 on 16:11, 23 February 2010; reversions: diff, 16:52, 22 February 2010, diff, 15:10, 1 March 2010 (beginning of an edit war, noting that there was more re-included in the revert diff).

Seeing the questionable use of sources, the persistence of users, and the multi-editor edit wars coming out of it, it seems that ArbCom might want to make some decisions here. --Dirk Beetstra 10:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - I did restore one reference before the above editor asked me not to. It is to a .pdf of the observers report on the 2002 referendum and was supplied by the Government returning officer for publication. I am not aware of this important document being available elsewhere, at present, and the use of gibnet.com as a source had not been banned, simply discouraged. The site predates wikipedia and is a recognised source of documents. it is included in the official UK national archive of online sites at their request. --Gibnews (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In response to Gibnews, the two documents I looked for:
I am not a specialist on Gibraltar or involved in any way, but I do think that, since reliability of the site has been questioned at WP:RS/N, that every single reference should be scrutinized before inclusion. This is not to say that these sites should not be used anywhere (which was in part why I refused blacklisting, it may be useful sometimes), but, and that is an outcome of earlier arbitrations (on similar situations on disputed subjects/fringe science/&c.): references should be of the best possible quality, and the only way to assert that is on talkpages, not keeping it there wrongly. If a reference/statement is questioned (e.g. removed), they should not be blindly re-inserted, that goes for references on gibnet, as well as for other sources. And if references are questioned, they should be removed (maybe including the statement they assert) and the onus is on those who want to include the statement (those who remove would provide a service if they started a discussion on removal, but the onus is not on them); removal of such references and statements is not vandalism, it is building reliable information. Removal may be wrong, it may in the end even turn out to be a 'bad' removal, but reverting is not the way forward, discussion is. --Dirk Beetstra 10:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Atama

I've been only peripherally involved with this dispute, so it's debatable whether I should be considered among the "involved parties" above, but I've made attempts to help out at the Gibraltar-related articles and help the regular contributors to those articles. My initial involvement came about due to a mediation request to help decide the best way to describe the turnover of Gibraltar from Spanish control to British control. After a discussion lasting a bit more than a month, an accepted compromise was reached. The only point that could not be settled was whether or not to include mention of the settlement of San Roque, Cádiz, and how to do so. I concluded that there was a deadlock and suggested that an RfC be used to bring outside opinion, and helped set up that RfC, but my participation in the RfC itself was almost non-existent. Since then I've only tried to keep a few disputes from escalating, and have helped most of the regular editors with one particular issue or another (both on talk pages and via email). I have no personal opinion on any of the content in the Gibraltar articles and have not edited them.

What I see as the biggest problem is an issue not uncommon at nationalist articles. There is far too much of a focus on editors and far too little focus on content in many of the discussions. This leads to assumptions of bad faith, where one editor assumes that another wants to insert a particular POV because of their nationality. I think this is very unfortunate, because in my time working with the editors at these articles I've personally come to believe that every single one of them has good motives, and if they were able to trust each other more I don't think there would be the problems that we see now. I haven't found any of the editors to be unreasonable even though they can't seem to always get along with one another.

Justin once proposed a form of article probation at ANI that would make ad hominem nationalist attacks be blockable offenses, and I supported that idea. Unfortunately there wasn't very much of a response to that suggestion to be able to determine whether or not the community at large would support such a measure. I'm hoping that the Committee would agree to something along those lines to help ease some of the tension seen at these articles. -- Atama頭 20:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Willdow

I've been watching the Gibraltar page for around five months and have more recently tried to find a final solution to these disputes (as have many before me). I don't think that the whole page is being owned by a few, as I have made edits to this page in the past, uncontested (albeit quite small edits and alterations). It's quite clear here though that there is no good faith amongst editors. Recent contention in particular has been whether to mention a nearby town, and whether Gibraltar is self-governing due to conflicting sources. These are simple matters, grossly complicated by assumptions of Nationalism by pro-Spanish and pro-Gibraltar editors (there are definitely two "sides") . The paranoia leads to nothing but bitter arguments and personal attacks. If each editor was reported to the letter of the law for what goes on in the Talk Page, I'm sure that most would have been blocked at least a few times if not more. I think a consensus could possibly be reached, but there needs to be some kind of VERY strict overseeing of this to ensure the long winded bickering doesn't break out again. Time and time again I have asked people to stay on topic and give very short answers, but essay after essay blots out serious discussion and everyone is back to square one. If you take a peek here you may see what I mean ("Lets state our preference and briefly why. Shall we say 50 word limit to avoid this dragging out?") A few replies are short and to the point, then the usual deviation and lengthy blah blah blahing comes back. I think this article just needs someone to take it by the scruff of the neck whilst discussion takes place (and some sort of article protection to avoid vigilante editors or socks taking things into their own hands. Will (Talk) 09:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (9/0/2/0)

Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare

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

Involved parties

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

Statement by Sandstein

On February 22 I reviewed a request for arbitration enforcement, now at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56#Brews ohare, concerning edits (, ) by Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to ANI. I found that these edits infringed Brews ohare's physics discussions topic ban and the discretionary sanctions previously logged by Tznkai (talk · contribs). At 07:22, 22 February 2010 I blocked Brews ohare for a week under the applicable enforcement provision.

Within hours, Brews ohare made an unblock request, which was not reviewed by an administrator for about five days. On 25 February another editor requested a review of the block on ANI, but the thread was archived (now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#User talk:Brews ohare block review) without a clear conclusion.

At 16:55, 28 February 2010, Trusilver, an administrator, granted the unblock request, arguing that the edits did not violate the arbitral ban and that, while the discretionary ban was technically violated, the block or its length was inappropriate. Trusilver also noted that he was unblocking "out of principle" because the block was set to expire soon anyway. Trusilver performed this unblock even though I had previously informed him (, ) that I opposed an unblock as long as Brews ohare did not credibly promise to stop infringing his bans as advised at WP:GAB.

I am aware that several editors have voiced their strong opposition to the block in the ANI thread and on several user talk pages, although most of them seem to be motivated mainly by their disagreement with the original arbitral decision against Brews ohare (about which I have no opinion) and/or general wikiphilosophical issues rather than the enforcement, as such, of the topic ban(s). I have no problem with fellow editors disagreeing with my administrator actions, or even with them undoing such actions if community consensus against the actions is clear. But unilaterally undoing arbitration enforcement actions, in the absence of the "clear, substantial, and active community consensus" required for such reversals according to this Committee's 2008 motion in re Slimvirgin, undermines the binding nature of the arbitration process and the effectiveness of arbitration enforcement, and is therefore disruptive.

Because Trusilver has declined my request to reinstate the block, instead defending the unblock as an exercise of WP:IAR, and because I may not reinstate it myself per WP:WHEEL, I ask the Arbitration Committee to

  • reinstate the block for its remaining duration of about half a day or to annotate the block log to reflect that the block was invalidly lifted,
  • take whatever measures it deems necessary to ensure that Trusilver does not continue to disrupt arbitration enforcement in this manner, and
  • consider adopting rules that would help prevent future situations of this nature, e.g. by
  • disallowing overturning of arbitration enforcement actions without explicit permission of the Committee (or of a subcommittee, or of individual arbitrators) under all circumstances, or
  • by stating more clearly the level of consensus required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action, such as in terms of forum, duration and level of participation.

Thank you for your consideration.  Sandstein  06:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Icewedge
Yes, in that it would confirm that arbitration is still a binding dispute resolution mechanism, and not one whose results can be ignored at will by individual disagreeing editors. The project benefits from having a binding dispute resolution mechanism.  Sandstein  07:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment with respect to Risker's comment
I would like to underline that my block was in enforcement of both the original topic ban and Tznkai's supplemental sanctions. Those additional sanctions I considered to remain in force since they are worded as being unlimited in duration and have been neither repealed nor appealed (at least not successfully). If the restrictions are obsolete or invalid, Brews ohare should have appealed them, not simply ignored them.  Sandstein  14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Notice - new {{uw-aeblock}} template
This should help to make the current rules more accessible. See discussion at WT:RFARB#AE specific block template. I'd appreciate review by experienced template coders and if possible integration in the appropriate WP:TOOLS. This will need to be updated if any more stringent rules are adopted as a result of this request.  Sandstein  19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Trusilver

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

Statement by Brews_ohare

There is no case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarcasm by Icewedge

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

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

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

Statement by Dr.K.

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

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

Statement by David Tombe

ARBCOM abdicated its responsibility at the AN/I thread when they had a chance to get involved. SirFozzie left us with a riddle and ran away. The discussion thread was then prematurely archived. Consensus at the original arbitration enforcement was unanimously against the block, and indeed, Sandstein even removed one comment which pointed to the real cause of all the trouble. And ARBCOM can't even deal with the current crisis without having to call upon some administrator who clouded the whole issue with some dodgy extra sanctions. Were their own sanctions not good enough? Was there not enough scope to bully Brews ohare using the original sanctions in isolation? There is one thing that ARBCOM doesn't do. They don't arbitrate. Has anybody ever seen ARBCOM arbitrating? Supposing we all woke up tomorrow morning and found that ARBCOM had been over-sighted? We'd ask Jimbo Wales "Oh where Oh where has our great ARBCOM gone?" He'd reply "ARBCOM? ARBCOM never existed". Would wikipedia be any worse off? David Tombe (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Response to Dr. K
Dr. K, The statements of the two arbitrators below require careful analysis. They certainly don't reflect the facts. Both seem to be suggesting that Trusilver didn't discuss the matter. On the contrary, I saw a lengthy discussion between Trusilver and Sandstein on Trulsilver's talk page. And I like the way they tried to portray the opposition as being 'highly charged partisans'. Also, note how they actually suggested that Trusilver should have gone to them to discuss the very thing that they ran away from discussing. The bias beggars belief. I wonder what is coming next. I can't wait to see. David Tombe (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Pieter Kuiper

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

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

Statement by Snowden

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

Comment by Ncmvocalist

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

Comment by Count Iblis

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Likebox

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

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

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

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

Concerning Heabomb/Finell See here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Awickert

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

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

Statement by Tznkai

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

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

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

Comment by Headbomb

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

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

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

Comment by Finell

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

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

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

Statement by Durova

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

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

Statement by Jehochman

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

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

Statement by PBS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by JzG

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

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

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

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

Comment by Gwen Gale

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

Comment by Physchim62

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

Comment by Fences and windows

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

Comment by JohnBlackburne

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

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

Comment by Hans Adler

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

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

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

Statement by Enric Naval

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

Statement by Profstandwellback

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

Statement by uninvolved Collect

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

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

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

Comment by Stifle

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

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • Request from uninvolved editor: while I appreciate that one of the parties may find a need to ignore the word limit up to a point, could a clerk please address those other editors who have unreasonably gone over it? Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Addressed by Ryan Postlethwaite.

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

  • Awaiting statement from Trusilver. I don't think an entire case is necessary here; anything that we need to do we should be able to do by motion. Steve Smith (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbolic or not, there is a line at the top of AE that states: In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except * with the written authorization of the Committee, or * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. In light of this, I find the argument of IAR uncompelling, to say the least. IAR is only supposed to be used when a rule is stupid and there's consensus that it is not needed, IAR is to prevent drama, not to cause it. Trusilver not only did not seek either , he was given multiple chances to correct the action and did not, which I find intensely disappointing. I agree that a full case is unnecessary, and have ideas for motions. SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Please note, I have now posted a motion below on this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I am certainly not going to make gestures in the direction of restoring a handful of hours from a week-long block as this would be an exercise in futility. That being said, the unblock by Truesilver is a patently ridiculous and political invocation of IAR. Gathering support and barnstars does not improve the encyclopedia, nor does unilaterally undoing a block hours before it expires "on principle". Administrative tools are emphatically not to be used to make political statements — there are plenty of mechanisms to appeal the substance or propriety of an enforcement action but IAR is not one of them. — Coren  11:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    Brews, I did not address the substance of your block for the simple reason that it is not material to this request, which is about how the unblock came about. — Coren  23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, Sandstein's block of Brews Ohare is based on the extension of sanctions carried out by Tznkai in November 2009, reviewed in December 2009, and which was scheduled to be reviewed again four weeks from December 10, 2009 (or approximately Jan 8/2010). I do not see any documentation that the planned January 2010 review took place or (if it did) what its result was. I'd like to hear from Tznkai about this, if he is available, and will ask a clerk to contact him. While I don't want to presuppose the situation, it looks right now as though we have a good-faith block made on the basis of an extension to an Arbcom remedy that was not intended to be long-term, putting everyone in something of an awkward situation. Risker (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think restoring the block would accomplish anything at this time, but this is not an indication that Sandstein's block was improper in any way. Trusilver's explanation leaves a lot to be desired; Misplaced Pages doesn't run by what individual's think is "the right thing to do" and I'm not convinced IAR applies since I fail to see how the project was improved by this political maneuvering. Trusilver's reluctance to remedy the situation despite multiple chances is truly disappointing. Brews is certainly aware by now how to contest any sanction, restriction or block considering how frequently he's done so (or had it done for him). I also believe that this can be handled by simple motion; the facts seem self-evident. Shell 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Brews, just in case you missed it, please see the large chunk of bold text SirFozzie posted; that should clear up your confusion about why Trusilver's actions were improper. Shell 20:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It should be clear at this point that those who undue AE actions unilaterally, without our authorization or a community consensus, do so at their own peril. I am not sure how much more clear we can make it. I agree this can be handled by motion. KnightLago (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In theory, every Misplaced Pages editor got principles. Unilateral and decisive actions based on personal principles have never been nor should become a Misplaced Pages principle. We wouldn't have this case presented here if we could have acted in a different way; that is to consult first and act accordingly. You disagree with an AE block? Don't unblock. There are many other ways to contest it apart from unblocking with the justification that "I got my principles guiding me." IAR is tricky. The blocking admin could also claim they are applying it regardless of the AE discussions. For the rest, I am in total agreement with SirFozzie, Coren, Shell and KnightLago. -- FayssalF - 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver/Brews ohare unblock Motion

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

(There being 16 arbitrators, two of whom are inactive, the majority is 8) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Updated by Hersfold 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator voting and discussion

Support
  1. I would like to note that while we give administrators a good amount of leeway on how they enforce ArbCom's remedies at AE and elsewhere, they are still required to discuss their actions as needed, and if consensus is against the action taken, gracefully consent to having the action overturned. But that consensus needs to be that of the community, not that of highly charged partisans on a user's talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  2. In particular, it needs to be noted that a good faith enforcement block needs an active consensus to undo. To do otherwise both diminishes the ability of remedies to be enforced and encourages an attitude of warring between disagreeing administrators which, in the best case, is begging for a wheel war. If one feels strongly that an enforcement action was unfair, in bad faith, or simply erroneous and it was not possible to discuss the matter satisfactorily with the enforcing admin, then the proper action is to either (a) raise community consensus in a suitable venue or (b) raise the matter directly with the committee. Simply reversing the action unilaterally is never acceptable. — Coren  21:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    It appears that this principle might not be entirely clear, so I will restate it: Unilaterally undoing an enforcement action is never appropriate. Even if, in your opinion, it was a "bad block". — Coren  23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  3. Rules either mean something or they do not; I cast my vote for the former approach. Steve Smith (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  4. Per SirFozzie, who sums up my thoughts nicely. KnightLago (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  5. While there is always room for good faith disagreements about enforcement, concerns should be handled with discussion, not unilateral unblocks or other sanction removal. Shell 20:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per the above, and also noting that the recent comments made by Trusilver (see the Meta comments section below) are not helping him in the slightest; incivility aside, they're not convincing me that this is going to be a one-time incident that won't be repeated again, despite the apparent commitment he's made. Hersfold 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  7. What Coren said. - Mailer Diablo 21:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  8. This is a difficult vote. I completely agree with Newyorkbrad below... while Trusilver's unblock was based on a personal principle, the rest of Trusilver's administrative actions have never been questionable. I could have just stopped at this point and opposed this motion. However, the problem is that their first meta comment below shows that they agree somehow that they wouldn't do it again while their second one makes me believe that they are like "I'll do it again, so what?!". That is inconsistent and unclear. Therefore I am supporting this motion unless Trusilver clarifies his position in a different way. -- FayssalF - 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Trusilver's unblock arguably violated our resolution of December 2008, and despite some mitigating factors as discussed in the editor comments above, an admonition against his doing this sort of thing again might be in order so as to preserve good order in the arbitration enforcement process (AE being an important part of the arbitration process as well as an important but entirely thankless and historically burnout-prone role for administrators). Under all the circumstances, however, I feel that desysopping Trusilver for what appears to have been a completely isolated incident is a seriously excessive reaction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Abstain

Meta Comments

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

While I reaffirm my position that Sandstein's original block was incorrect and had nothing whatsoever to do with the sanction as he claimed in his block message, I have no problem with that. I wouldn't do it again within the stated parameters and with the understanding that arbcom sanction blocks are clearly labled as such beforehand. Trusilver 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"I didn't know that this was an arbitration enforcement block, or else I wouldn't have removed it without discussion and consensus" may be a valid defense. "Ignore all rules" definitely isn't. Do you now agree with those two statements? Jehochman 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The nice little arbcom sycophant's comments below notwithstanding. I'm going to have to say no. If the block was labeled with the new template, I wouldn't have unblocked on the basis of a more clear and accessible set of directions for appealing the block. But I'm not about to lie about it. If I had it to do all over again, and all circumstances remain as they were, I wouldn't have done anything differently. A bad block remains a bad block even if the overzealous blocking admin tries to pretend that it somehow applied to an existing sanction. I have nothing further to add. Trusilver 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Clerks, feel free to remove this section if it's inappropriate, but I would like to point out that the AE block was clearly labeled as such (block log, talk page, Trusilver's talk). Also, some of Trusilver's recent comments in this matter (, , ) make me doubt the sincerity of any commitment that he might want to make at this juncture. (This is strange also).  Sandstein  17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case Add topic