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

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

Non party statements during the request

Please start new threads for discussion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

Filing party needs to continue revising. None of the supposed dispute resolution since April 1 relates to the complaint as described. Whatever scope is intended, other parties will need to be added, but until the filing party figures out what they intend to complain about it isn't clear which parties that would be. Recommend removal until the filing party gets their act together, in the alternative the ArbComm can just ignore it until then. GRBerry 19:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Ok, sigh, this case is going to be opened. I strongly encourage Kirill to not recuse fully from the case; he should participate at least for reviewing the actions of SlimVirgin and FeloniousMonk. I understand why he might recuse from review of Cla's actions, but I have full confidence that he can do at a better a job of reviewing without bias SV and FMs actions in this case than several other arbitrators will do of reviewing Cla's actions. (Yes, the only way I see the project benefiting from this case is if the arbitrators actively praise Cla's good work here, with desysopping SV a possible benefit but one that I would be shocked to see occur.) GRBerry 13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Wizardman

If accepted, I urge ArbCom to look at the conduct and manner of all parties, even loosely, involved. Cla, Slim, etc. Focusing on Cla, throwing things at him, spending all the energy on that will likely cause a ripple effect far too great on Wikipedia after the case is over. Wizardman 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Mackan79

This appears to be a long list of complaints from an editor as to situations he wasn't directly or even indirectly involved in. The problem is that if FM has a valid concern, it seems to be that Cla68 comments on behavioral disputes that he isn't directly involved in. The only difference I see is that FM has come directly to ArbCom, while Cla68 has made extensive efforts to get the community to address some of these difficult issues.

That said, I believe Cla68's actions have wide community support. With no disrespect to JzG, Cla68's RfC on his editing brought in wideranging and supportive comments, and seemed to serve exactly the intended purpose of the RfC process. None of this was comfortable, but I find it very hard to believe Cla68 could be reprimanded for this. He took a leadership role, I believe his efforts were widely appreciated, and he helped address an ongoing source of extensive conflict. The situation with SlimVirgin is in my opinion the same. Here, Cla68 has a much more direct reason to comment on her behavior: Cla68 directly observed SV's ability to come into his RfA, despite his extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia, and with highly personal condemnations bring about a result of no consensus. Cla68 later saw similar issues where community evaluation remained stunted. As someone with unquestionable dedication to the project, he has made efforts to address these in the least intrusive ways possible. Note specifically Cla68's diligence in removing claims on the RfC that he saw were unsupported, removing inflammatory comments, etc., an effort markedly absent from this RfA.

In sum, I do not believe ArbCom should circumvent the community by taking this case. If FM has issues with Cla68's behavior, he should bring an RfC. The alternative would need to be a signficantly broader case, but without community comment I think it would be mistaken and unnecessary. All editors involved in this are experienced, active, involved in community decisions, and should be able to make their cases directly to the community if they need to be made. Mackan79 (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Amerique

For the Arbcom's benefit, other than various direct confrontations at Cla68's talk page, no RFCs other than one Cla initiated on himself a while ago have been issued. Cla doesn't seem to me to be exhibiting a bad attitude towards or misusing Wikipedia process, much less regard RFCs or data-gathering for them as threatening. Amerique^dialectics 21:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Sxeptomaniac

I believe the following to be a quite short on facts:

"Most recently Cla68 implicitly threatened to out various editors with the press. Despite requests from several editors to repudiate his implicit threat, his initial responses are similarly menacing, e.g. "If the editors in question correct their behavior, then I'll gladly move on to other issues." "Like I said, if there aren't any more conduct problems (edit warring, canvassing, etc) related to ID articles, then I leave it alone." Only after five days of posts on his Talk: page from a half dozen editors indicating the inappropriateness of his comments, he finally apologizes "for not choosing my words more carefully.""

Cla68 made no such threat. As a participant in the original thread, I did not interpret Cla68 to be making any threats, nor do I believe it is reasonable to interpret his comments in such a way. He made it abundantly clear on his talk page and the original thread that he was responding to another person's comments that a reporter had considered doing a story on a particular group of editors and what a number of people believe to be their less-than-exemplary behavior.

I find attempts to mine out-of-context quotes for politics quite distasteful, and part of the pattern of poor behavior by this particular group. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Viridae

Sorry but what? Cla68 has made no threats of outing, has not üsed DR as a weapon - the JzG RfC has had more participation than any I have seen in a long while - and JzGs behaviour was WIDELY critisied in the said RfC - an effort of several month work to put together (hence the time taken in the SlimVirgin RfC, which I have no doubt will be filed if SV continues to behave in the manner she does). The problem here is that certain editors do no like being called to task on their own bad behaviour. Cla shows both exemplary editing skills and exemplary dispute resolution skills - always remaining calm in spite of wild claims of harrasment like those made here. Really this RfArb is spurious attempt to silence a valid critic. Viridae^Talk 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jossi

I will only say this: If you become the target of Cla68, for any reason, the joy of editing Wikipedia will quickly dissipate. I say that from personal experience. One can disagree with other editor's way of being in WP, his/her POV, or understanding and application of policies: that is part and parcel of any collaborative environment. But to poison the atmosphere to such extent as Cla68 has done with certain editors he dislikes, is simply unacceptable. I urge the arbCom to hear this case, so that evidence can be presented and remedies applied if necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Further comment: I would argue that divisiveness is one of the issues that has the potential to make WP implode. It is about time that we forcefully reject attempts to divide and polarize the project. Enough is enough is enough. Can we go back to building a community rather than destroy it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Privatemusings

(much longer statement redacted) - I don't believe the arbcom is capable of helping in this matter. That'll do. Privatemusings (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the arb case must continue - at least at present. You are behaving foolishly, chaps - the people named in this case have all contributed an awful lot to wikipedia, and deserve better. The level of commentary on this, and other, cases however makes me think that it's a little unlikely submissions like this get much attention, so I'll wish you well, and wander off with a raised eyebrow, and a gentle shake of the head..... Privatemusings (talk) 11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Time to call a spade a shovel. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

Felonious Monk hardly seems like the one who should be throwing the first stone. He is consistently one of the more divisive forces contributing to a toxic atmosphere on Wikipedia, making constant snide references to "your little group" when referring to people he dislikes, while he joins with his own clique to gang up on their "enemies". He responded to another user's conduct RFC by saying that "This RFC has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. Thanks!" He responded to other users expressing concern about a possible copyvio image, and to then-admin Kelly Martin trying to evenhandedly cool down the fighting that resulted, by saying "What I've seen here is very one-sided bullying and intimidation of SV over a petty, contrived issue, and it's going to stop, Kelly included." (As far as I can see, the bullying and intimidation was being done by FM and his friends, and that comment was part of it.) His "us vs. them" attitude sows acrimony throughout Wikipedia. He also consistently allies himself with the same clique that pushed the failed WP:BADSITES initiative, while hypocritically linking to so-called attack sites himself when it suits his purposes. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by krimpet✽

Since this case seems on its way to being accepted, I too hope that the actions of all parties are looked into here, such as FeloniousMonk's divisive rhetoric and willingness to engage in ruthless personal attacks. With an environment like this being cultivated, is it unsurprising that longtime contributors like Cla68 might be pushed over the edge? krimpet✽ 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Neil

Cla68 is guilty of nothing other than trying to improve the behaviour of some of Wikipedia's old guard, who have been around long enough to think they can get away with things others can not, and we are seeing the first attempt to try and discredit him. This smacks of "do unto others as they would do unto you ... but do it first" - no sooner did Cla68 incorporate some diffs including FeloniousMonk in his sandbox RFC, then this Arbcom case was filed. As no previous attempt at dispute resolution (such as an RFC) has been attempted, I am surprised Arbcom is so readily willing to accept this. Particularly as Cla68 has, at no time, done anything wrong, nor has he been malicious or untruthful. Cla68 has been one of a few editors willing to take the lead on dealing with the institutionalised problematic users Wikipedia has within its ranks, and has judiciously played by the rules at every step. Given Arbcom is nevertheless going to accept this, then I would hope all parties have their behaviour rigorously examined, and would urge Cla68 to submit the evidence he has been collating for SlimVirgin's RFC (evidence which she is, unsurprisingly, trying to discredit). Neıl ☎ 08:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Dragon695

Do not be decieved. This is yet another attempt by the supporters of BADSITES to harass an editor who believes that NPOV trumps personal issues and feelings about external websites. Specifically, this group has shown a constant desire to "punish" those who engage in constructive dialogue over at Wikipedia Review. A few Bureaucrats even commented on this group's inappropriate behavior over at RFA when they spent the better portion of 2007 torpedoing any nominations that didn't agree 100% with their reckless policy. NPOV is a core foundation policy, so there is no room for negotiation whatsoever. Cla86 should be commended for his strong stand against them. I strongly agree with those who call for SlimVirgin's actions relating to this and otherwise be investigated. It is a known fact that she coerced another administrator to oversight her "embarrassing" edits and even some of her previous wrongdoings. Her tag-team approach to underminding policy with the meatpuppet Crum is widely known within the community. The question is, what is ArbCom going to do about her? --Dragon695 (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:B

I have not looked at and am not familiar with Cla68's dispute with SlimVirgin, so I offer no opinion on that. With respect to Cla68's supposed outing threat, he was not making a threat - just commenting on Moulton's statement that he (Moulton) had contacted the media. He explained this immediately upon being asked, both here and on Wikipedia Review. The "other steps" attempting to resolve that issue were all after Cla68 had already clarified his statement. This comment from Felonious Monk is far more of a threat than Cla68 made. Raul654 threatened Cla68 with a ban. Both of these were a day after Cla68 had already clarified what he was talking about - he had no intention of going to the press, and was just commenting on Moulton going to the press.

The underlying issue was the Rosalind Picard biography (which, incidentally, FeloniousMonk s-protected despite his obvious involvement in the issue, despite the fact that an uninvolved admin had removed protection only three days prior following an RFPP request, and despite there having been ZERO IP or non-autoconfirmed users editing in a week). This "biography", though thanks to the work of some unbiased editors, is now pretty decent. It originally was an attack piece containing nothing but information about A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Our treatment as a project of this biography is absolutely shameful and the inability of some individuals to deal with a biography of a living person without turning it into a coatrack on intelligent design is terrible. --B (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Jim62sch's diff below, I seriously doubt Cla68 was trying to say that he was an admin. The phrase "uninvolved editors and admins like me" could be parsed as "(uninvolved editors) and (admins like me)" or "(uninvolved editors and admins) like me". I'm assuming his intention was the latter, even though his phrasing could have been better. --B (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rocksanddirt

Since it looks like the committee is likely to accept this case. I request that it be a full reivew of all three editors contributions to the project. Not focused on the last month or so, not only on Cla, but take a hard look at all three users actions. And I would request that no arbitors recuse themselves. These users are old timers with history and it will be a personal personal case.

I also feel that if the committee is not going to seriously consider desysops/bans of various kinds that the case should NOT be accepted. A deciscion of 'play nice' hurts the project. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

comment regarding Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The's comment....IMO we have three spades, what do we do with them? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jim62sch

I know nothing about the issues with FM and SV so I won't comment on them. However, as a target of off- and on-wiki comments as delineated in the Other bullying and bad faith comments section of User:FeloniousMonk's arbcom evidence page, comments that could reasonably taken to be threats and harassment, as well as Cla68's apparent attempt to pass himself off as an admin, I do think this case needs to be looked into. I'm not sure why I was targeted as Cla68 and I have had little interaction (although I did recently make some edits to an article he is working on, edits for which he thanked me), but the comments he made were disquieting to say the least. I know we all make mistakes (I've made enough of my own), and I know we all word things poorly (guilty again), but we should at least get to the bottom of the issue. Cla68 has done some quite excellent work on WWII PTO articles, but as his work and his comments seem at odds, I'd at least appreciate an apology for those ill-considered comments nonetheless. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: Cla68 did not "pass himself off as an admin." Cla68 refers to "uninvolved editors and admins like me." He was identifying himself as an "uninvolved editor." Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The measure of whether Cla68's apparent threat was realistic or just blowing smoke, would lie with past behaviour. In Cla68's case, on at least on prior occasion he has gone to the press with a version of events that was contradicted by numerous others in good standing (including Jimbo), all of whom were better informed about the events in question, and which (importantly) was supported by absolutely nobody with detailed knowledge of the events in question. So as far as I'm concerned, this is a credible threat to go to the press, made as a means of furthering a content dispute, from someone with a past history of going to the press to further a content dispute, and who shows signs of preferring WP:TRUTH to WP:AGF; as such, it would seem to me to be unacceptable conduct.

Cla68's campaign against SlimVirgin is also deeply troubling, especially the "laundry list of grudges" which he has compiled. I don't think userspace is supposed to be used for laundry lists of grudges. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by CJCurrie

Just a very short question: Does FloNight also plan to recuse herself from this case? CJCurrie (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this and would also request recusal. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

I repeatedly asked Cla68 to resume his excellent FA level and to cease trying to provoke SlimVirgin...apparently he didn't. Cla68 has been assembling for months now, a compendium of SlimVirgin's "mistakes" or whatever...and Cla68 is right that it is normal to create a usersubpage for the purposes of assembling diffs...but where he is wrong is when he leaves this listing up for months and does nothing with it...I think the main effect was less about actually taking it to an RFC and instead, since he solicited help from almost everyone who has ever had a beef from Slim, it has been used to provoke. Cla68 has wikistalked Slim to a number of pages he has never edited before. Cla68 has repeatedly badgered Slim at her talkpage. Cla68 has repeatedly been supportive of linking to pages that attack Slim and others. Cla68 has been engaged in a witch hunt on a number of editors. His featured level work is commendable but is tarnished by his overt efforts to make other editors miserable.--MONGO 04:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, not so many diffs proving your point, your evidence is overwhelming me.... 195.216.82.210 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Statements by non-parties after the case started

Comment by RelHistBuff

I am somewhat mystified. This matter should have been taken up at earlier levels of dispute resolution (i.e., at RfC level as mentioned by Mackan79) before arriving here. But it appears the queue has been jumped. Since the case has been accepted, then I would ask that the arbitrators will equally examine the behaviours of all three parties named in the case. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Tim Vickers

I notice that on User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Cla68_Arbcom_evidence a discussion that I participated in at the admin noticeboard has unfortunately been misinterpreted. I got several e-mails from other admins about this discussion, but none from Cla68. I chose not to discuss these private communications on Wiki, so I have no idea on what basis FM has for his statement that Cla68 e-mails Tim insisting he needs to respond again. I'd recommend people interested in this exchange read it for themselves (link), since the summary provided by FM seems to add rather a lot of interpretation and commentary on an event he was not involved in. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by totally uninvolved Dr. Extreme

To tell the truth, I'm not surprised that it came here. Really, this is one case where the earlier levels of dispute resolution would probably have merely polarized the community more. After watching the drama and ultimately (to many) unsatisfying conclusion of the Mantanmoreland case, I feel that this case will have one of several conclusions, only one of which will be good for the encyclopedia in the long run. The outcome of which I speak basically involves the ArbCom taking bold steps, which are then followed by the community. If the ArbCom acts with insufficient strength and finality, the long-festering undercurrent of disagreement that has been going on for years will continue to grow more putrescent and toxic, and the project may lose a great deal of its respectability. If the community does not abide by a sufficiently bold decision, then once again the project will tear itself apart.

Well, maybe not quite that dramatic. I tend to speak in an epic manner. But this is a seriously important case for the entire project. Dr. eXtreme 18:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

user-conduct RFC in userspace

The following two comments by Neil were replies in the statements of JzG and MONGO respectively, added after the case was opened. I have moved them here as statements are not usually commented on by others, and also tweaked the second one a little. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Preparing a user-conduct RFC in userspace is appropriate - can such RFCs be dismissed as a "laundry list of grudges"? I agree a list of grudges would not be appropriate in userspace. I am unsure a draft RFC can be described as such. Was the similar RFC Cla68 prepared on yourself also a laundry list of grudges? Neıl ☎ 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The RFC that MONGO and others are mentioning is here. The RFC draft was started on March 21, and has been worked on pretty continuously. I don't think "doing nothing with it" is fair, and the use of rhetoric such as "wikistalking", "witch hunt", and "repeatedly badgered" is similarly unfair, particularly sans evidence to back these claims up. Neıl ☎ 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

JzG

Initiated by Viridae^Talk at 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

• JzG

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2

Statement from involved parties

Statement by Viridae

On March 2, 2008 a user-conduct RfC was posted in response to a long and continuous history of incivility, personal attacks, disruption, and abuse of administrator privileges by JzG (talk · contribs). The RfC contained over 160 examples of poor conduct from JzG, and received significant participation with, for example, 76 editors as of May 10 endorsing the statement left by Kirill calling on JzG to amend his unacceptable behaviour.

Although JzG declined to respond directly to the RfC, his behaviour did appear to improve for a short time after the RfC was posted. Unfortunately, however, he appears to have resumed the same or a very similar pattern of behaviour that is contrary to policy and creates an unacceptably hostile and counter-productive atmosphere within the project. The behaviour again includes misuse of administrator privileges. Below are some examples of JzG’s behaviour that is causing serious concern:

Incivility and personal attacks:

1. In response to an attempt by Dtobias to discuss a recent deletion review says, “Troll Tobias has arrived, all possible utility has now been removed from this discussion. Dan, you are unwelcome here” [1] and deletes Dan’s comment. He then says of Dan, “If Dan doesn't want to be called a troll, he might perhaps try not trolling me. His sensitivity to the slightest hint of insult combined with his fierce determination to allow links to offsite attacks however vile speak to me of gross hypocrisy” [2]. Discussed at AN [3]
2. Says of editor in deletion review discussion, “If Urban Rose was not a self-admitted ED user I might be a tiny fraction more sympathetic, but ultimately ED is a festering pile of shit and an article on it inherently degrades Wikipedia” [4]
3. Says of another editor during a deletion review discussion, “Fuck me, yet another obsessive pro-PRT WP:SPA pushing Malewicki's fantasy.” [5]. Discussed at ANI [6]
4. States in an edit summary about another editor as he deletes the editor’s edit, “Good God almighty, who on earth rewrote that box? It's patently absurd on so many levels that we simply can't have it” [7] (self-reverts six minutes later [8])
5. To editor in edit summary on his talk page, “Giovanni, I do not give a toss what you think” [9]
6. Tells established editor on his talk page, “And I am asking you, very firmly, to stop advancing your fringe POV in articles, because that (unlike my being impatient with you) actively degrades the encyclopaedia” [10]
7. Referring to other editors on his user page “These POV-pushing idiots have got to go. They insert all sorts of shit on the basis that any two people who agree with them is consensus and any number who disagree means nothing. They are monomaniacs, disruptive, the article is an embarrassment, and they have showed long-standing determination to make sure it remains that way.” [11]
8. Says in reference to Viridae, “I'm sure Viridae did something to improve the encyclopaedia in that time as well, besides shit-stirring and wheel-warring with an admin with whom he is in dispute.”
9. Refers to an editor’s contribution as “twaddle” [12]
10. Confrontational remark to editor, “Already discussed, and you lost that time as well.” [13]
11. To editor during a content dispute, “Ah yes, silly of me to forget the way Wikipedia is set up to work is that you keep pushing the same fringe POV until everybody else has lost interest and you get your way.” [14]
12. To editor during a content dispute “You stop promoting fringe bullshit and I'll stop being sarcastic. Deal?" [15]
13. Says that DanT, “behaves like an obsessive trolling idiot” and says to Cla68, “I consider you an evil underhanded spiteful shit-stirring weasel“ [16]. He reverted statement 3 minutes later with edit summary calling DanT and Cla68 “persona non grata” [17] and then refused to apologize for making it when asked [18]

Disruption:

1. Premature close of article deletion review [19] with edit summary of “no” [20]
2. Adds insulting templates User:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel : [21] User:JzG/CA [22] to talk page of article [23] [24] (noted on AN) [25]
3. Deletes cited content from an article concerning an issue with which he was personally involved [26]

Misuse of administrator privileges:

1. Makes substantial edit to a protected article [27] (discussed at AN [28]) warned by another admin [29]
2. Blocks Proabivouac [30] for “harassment” with rationale (in subsequent discussion) that editor, “is not a contributor at present, merely a drama whore. Were he a contributor I'd have left him be.” [31]. ANI discussion: [32]

The abuse of administrator privileges, are of course, of special concern. In actuality, most if not all of the incidences listed above seem to relate to JzG’s participation in project administration. JzG takes a very active role in this function. The problem, as shown by the evidence in the RfC and here, is that his behaviour consistently does not meet the minimum level of professionalism and decorum that we require and expect of administrators.

To summarize, JzG has in his time at Wikipedia repeatedly flaunted most, if not all of the behavioural policies set down to help create a collaborative working environment on Wikipedia. This cannot last. Viridae^Talk 09:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Jehochman 10:19, 18 May 2008) I am leaving it up to others to add other parties as they see fit. Apologies for replying here. Viridae^Talk 10:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC) For context, this post was initially made in Jehochman's section, but moved to Viridae's by a clerk. 10:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Sceptre - honestly, if it wasn't me it was going to be someone else - I can think of half a dozen people off the top of my head that have expressed their desire to bring a case here - in fact there might have been one sooner but for them being told that this request was in the process of being drafted. Viridae^Talk 13:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment to arbs on the scope of this case and Cla's

These case have very little crossover - to mix them would be to cloud both issues enormously. This case is primarily about JzGs atrocious behaviour and my response to it. Cla has very little to do with that apart from being one of the people to prepare the RfC (about half a dozen people participated in that). I have no place as a party to the cla case and neither does JzG - just as FM and SV have no place in this one. Viridae^Talk 21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to FCYTravis

Please oh please take a look at the RfC... Viridae^Talk 07:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Copied from FCYTravis' section to Viridae's, Daniel (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC).

Statement by JzG

Well now. I responded to the RfC at User:JzG/RfC, but I must say that it comes as no surprise to see Viridae bringing this case, he has been pursuing an agenda against me for a long time. This has led Viridae to make many bad calls himself, such as restoring articles created by a banned user, at the request of the banned user, said request being made at Wikipedia Review and with no discussion on Wikipedia. Viridae has also reverted numerous admin actions made by me, despite the long-standing dispute. So this does look like yet another outing for his grudge. Or maybe it's retaliation for Cla68's case being taken, that too is plausible.

As to what I do, I do my best to improve the encyclopaedia. I make no secret of having extraordinarily little patience with POV-pushers, especially the long-term endlessly polite pushers of fringe views. But it is false to say that my behaviour has not changed at all - I now routinely disengage when trolled, for example, which is why I chose not to take part directly in the RfC.

If you want to add the antagonists to the case, Dan Tobias, Cla68 and various fringe / pseudoscience pushers need to be added as well as Viridae (the arbitrators are well aware of my issues with Viridae, I think). If people manage to get my sysop bit rescinded, to the undoubted delight of Wikiepdia Review, I will simply be less able to work on the spam and OTRS issues that dominate what little time I spend on Wikipedia these days.

On a more personal note, I am really wondering why the hell I bother here. As a result of stopping blatant abuse of the project I have been attacked on several websites, several harassment blogs by frustrated spammers have been set up and taken down again, I've dealt with people like JB196 and Jason Gastrich, I've been phoned in the small hours, I've had my actions misrepresented and distorted, I've been accused of being a US Government shill, an anti-US bigot, a militant atheist, a True Believer, and like many Wikipedians who work hard to resist the POV-pushers, I have been relentlessly baited on and off Wikipedia. Wikipedia's mechanism for dealing with harassment is as follows: isolate the victim and hang them out to dry.

However, there is a much more serious and fundamental issue at stake here. Wikipedia currently shows absolutely no sign of being able to handle the tensions created by long-term polite advancement of extreme minority views. The few people who work hard to prevent this, are all under continued assault with demands for bans and other sanctions. I fear for WP:NPOV, genuinely. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• A couple more things. One: I am not saying I have done nothing wrong, quite the opposite, just that I am not an unreasonable person and if approached with anything like good faith will quite often bend over backwards to help people, even people like Jon Awbrey whose user page I think should be moved to avoid his sockpuppetry and abuse being top hit for his name. On the other hand, I do respond rather badly to trolling and abuse of the project, and those who troll me repeatedly (e.g. Viridae and Tobias), have quite often provoked me to invective. Note that I usually simply remove such comments these days and do not follow or watch the places where they carry on such nonsense. I would suggest that in the "failing to drop it" stakes, I am not exactly the worst offender listed here. Two: Wikipedia has rather too many drama-only accounts. You might want to compare special:Contributions/Viridae and special:Contributions/Dtobias with special:Contributions/JzG. A quick count a minute ago indicated that I have made more mainspace edits this month to date than Viridae has all year. Three: I have deleted nearly ten thousand articles and virtually all of them are still red, most which are not are redirects or complete rewrites. I have made around 1,200 blocks and unblocks, the vast majority of which were and are unchallenged. So: I am a fairly active admin, and therefore make my share of errors. I believe that perfection is not required.
• I would be extremely happy if the community could come up with a way of helping to reduce the pressure on admins who work at areas of controversy, such as spam and abuse. I'd be happier still if we could make a concerted effort to fix the civility issue. A guideline which does not work for long-standing editors such as Giano and me, a guideline which is used as a stick with which to beat us rather than a light to guide our path, is a very poor guideline. It is extremely easy to fish out one diff from the end of a long debate, and call it uncivil, ignoring the events which led up to it. I don't think that's helpful. But you will note I hope that my outbursts of "rhetorical exuberance" are much less frequent than they were.
• Finally (for the minute), the comments about the "state terrorism" article above should be taken in the context of the repeated requests regarding that article and the few admins who have tried to stop it being the POV cesspool it is. I suggested stubbing and reworking, line by line, with nothing going in unless it is robustly sourced and there is strong consensus that it represents a significant view, rather than the view of a single individual that belongs in that individual's article - and of course avoiding the temptation to engage in novel synthesis. I remain convinced that this is the right thing to do with that article. I do not pretend to have any skills at mediation, but I am sure William will join me in welcoming with open arms any admin who wants to take on that task. After months if not years of bickering and POV-warring, I would suggest the time is long past to deal firmly with that most atrocious of all articles. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside comments and observations

Statement by Neil

From here: "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute". This goes double when the user is an administrator. It is unfortunate that this Arbcom case is needed. JzG's RFC of a few months ago (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2) received a heavy amount of community participation, with the consensus seemingly that JzG's behaviour had been inappropriate for an administrator - I hoped it would have improved JzG's behaviour. And it did, but only for a few weeks. JzG is a very active member of the site, participating in many project areas of Wikipedia, as well as OTRS. It would be wholly churlish to suggest he does not work hard for Wikipedia, as it would be churlish to suggest his heart is not in the right place. Unfortunately, he is incapable of conducting himself in a consistently civil or constructive manner. JzG seems to believe being a "grumpy old bastard" ([33] - his words, not mine) is acceptable in an administrator; it is not.

I hope that Arbcom takes this case as there is compelling evidence to show JzG's behaviour is wholly inappropriate for an administrator. Given the failure of an RFC with hundreds of participants to remedy JzG's actions, I would have doubts that a mere admonition to "be nice" would have any prolonged effect. Another standard Arbcom quote (from here): "Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status." WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are Wikipedia policies. There is evidence above (distinct and as well as the 160 or so diffs in the prior RFC) that shows JzG is consistently incapable of adhering to these policies, and recommend, with a heavy heart, that JzG be stripped of his administrator rights. A few months as a "normal editor" may restore perspective in a way mere urging has not, and I would not be opposed to a subsequent RFA. Neıl 龱 09:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional - I do not think this fits well as an addition to the Cla68/FeloniousMonk/SlimVirgin RFArb. Guy's conduct is wholly separate to those issues; it neither stems from them nor has it caused them. I would also hope the Arbcom do not fall for the "well, he does lots of good work so he can get away with it" routine. Nothing causes more schisms within the community than measuring long-time contributors by a different yardstick. Attempts to ask JzG to behave civilly (such as the RFC) have failed. Blocking has also failed - I blocked him ([34]) for 24 hours following two particularly rancorous examples of incivility ([35],[36]), and it was swiftly overturned; a minority of experienced users believe Guy is untouchable, and as Guy believes he can get away with it, his behaviour has continued, and even worsened. The only way for Guy to learn his behaviour is unacceptable is for Arbcom to demonstrate it is unacceptable, forcibly. Neıl 龱 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Viridae, your points appear to have some validity. However, I think we need to add Guy's antagonists as parties to the case. I request that the behavior of 'all parties be considered, with the goal of ending this tiresome feud. Geogre explains the dynamic quite well. JzG would be more civil if those who delight in provoking him would simply leave him be. Likewise, it would be much better if Guy stopped venting at his antagonists. Jehochman ^Talk 10:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added User:Dtobias and User:Cla68 to this case, since they have been cited in Viridae's evidence, and it seems clear that they have been involved in the same dispute. I hope that their participation can help shed light on these matters and bring an end to the conflict. Jehochman ^Talk 10:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Note to Cla68 and the clerks: I have added Cla68 and Dtobias because these parties were specifically mention by both Viridae and Guy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman's response to GRBerry

Maybe if more admins were willing to help deal with the really hard problems, that would take some pressure off of Guy, and his politeness would improve. Perhaps friendly support is the best path forward, as has been tried with User:Mikkalai. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anonymous Dissident

I appreciate, and would also now like to make clear, that I have, in my time here on en, had little to no direct interaction with JzG. However, I'd still like to make some kind of remark. A remark of agreement with Neil, in that JzG should, unfortunate as it may be, lose his sysop privileges.

What this whole debacle comes down to is how we on Wikimedia, and on the English Wikipedia, view and define an administrator, as opposed and in relation to the traditional sense and meaning of the word. Here, an administrator is merely a user with augmented technical access. But the traditional sense of the word, that is, "one who manages; one appointed to take charge", as my dictionary reads, inherently must amalgamate with that purely technical function. Admins must display extreme cool in all situations, and civility and rational discussion is their code. Now, JzG may have done well in the strictly technical position of an administrator, on most occasions, but his behaviour is, in my opinion, not acceptable for anyone, let alone an administrator, "one who manages; one who takes charge".

He has been given ample chances to lift his game and to rise up from this whole idea that he can say what he wants, do what he wants, and get away with it with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Even the stagnating RfC only served as a momentary wake-up call; after a few weeks, as Neil notes, JzG had fallen back to his prior antics.

Serious action needs to be taken. Unfortunately, "grumpy old bastard" admins who seem to be labouring under the impression that "anything goes" have been a problem throughout the English Wikipedia's history (I won't name anyone), and something needs to be done. As the relevant page suggests, the position of "admin" does not carry with it exemption from our policy. According action should naturally be taken, and that is what I suggest. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident's further comments

Of course, the situation must be examined from all sides. Viridae has a history of personal feuding with Guy... but then, it's not Viridae we're examining here. It's the diffs he's pulled up, and more. But others have noted that the diffs aren't really that bad. Well, that's a fair enough call, but those questioning these diffs will need to bring to light these "not-so-bad" diffs. We can work forward from there. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by dihydrogen monoxide

Agree with Jehochman. If you're going to accept, look at everyone. Sure, Guy has done some really bad things, but he has also done some really good things. The exact same can be said of many of those who have been involved in his actions—some would go so far as to call them his lynchmob. Check their behaviour, too. It might be great, it might not, but to go into this with an eye solely for Guy will be unfair and have a negative effect on the encyclopedia.

That said, I'm not condoning the behaviour cited by Viridae, or, in most cases, the stuff brought up in the recent RfC. Just arguing for fairness, I am. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Sceptre

Surprise surprise it was Viridae who brought the RFAR - Viridae is well-known for butting heads with Guy. I think, really, the only thing Guy has done wrong is be snarky, and even were he placed on civility parole, I doubt it's reason enough to strip his administrator rights. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Casliber

I know civility is important, but I am also concerned with fringe ideas and the difficulties sustained in negotiating these areas. This is a systemic problem and there have been many incidents iwith different users and issues. The big issue is how civility weighs up against fringe theories and wikipedia's respectability as an encyclopedia. I note there is discussion in the area - see User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing - as it is obviously a difficult area to negotiate. Similarly, interactions with ED and those who have participated at WR is always going to be a difficult area. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jim62sch

I know I've said this before elsewhere, but as Wiki-the-P strives to be like Academe, it might behoove the editors to remember that Academe is often a forum for snarky comments. OK, that may not make it right (whatever "right" means), but it is reality. Think of Einstein and the QM guys -- that got pretty nasty. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch's response to DTobias

Well, at least Dan wasn't snarky, nor did he descend into a vio of WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Franamax

Subtract from this Arb request Guy's well-known triggers: I would identify Viridae, Dtobias and Cla68 among these, though I could be wrong. Now subtract the fringe POV's. What's left? A dedicated and experienced admin working in the toughest areas of the wiki, day-by-day tackling the problems and solving them. Eggs are broken but I'm not persuaded that valuable editors are being driven away. JzG has modified his approach since the RFC, we need to see a sustained pattern of behaviour detrimental to the encyclopedia, as opposed to hurting the feelings of those who seek out Guy's least misbehaviour for comment. Franamax (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by DuncanHill

JzG'z response to the RfC was to state that he had no intention of reading it. That does not (in my opinion) inspire confidence in his willingness to participate in community-based ways of dealing with matters of concern. DuncanHill (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Dtobias

JzG's latest hobby horse seems to be "long-term endlessly polite pushers of fringe views", which seems to mean "people who disagree with JzG, and have the unmitigated gall to do this in a civil and reasonable manner, instead of having the decency to blow up obnoxiously and give JzG an excuse to ban the bastards." Apparently, in his view, it's not the presence or absence of civil behavior that's important, only the user's opinion on various litmus-test issues; if they have the politically incorrect opinion on things, they're "bad guys" and need to be opposed by all means fair or foul by the "good guys". This "Defender of the Wiki" mindset has been brilliantly parodied by this blog. (At least I think it's a parody... at times it can be hard to tell parodies of this over-the-top attitude from genuine examples of it!) This "Us vs. Them" mentality is horribly corrosive to Wikipedia. (And, yes, before somebody makes the inevitable response that I've done it myself too, with all my talk of "cliques"... sure... it's a really easy pattern of behavior to fall into when you feel strongly about something, and I can use an occasional trout-slapping too.) *Dan T.* (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting into a pissing contest with JzG over edit histories isn't really the most productive thing I could do, but it got me curious enough to check my own stats... currently 9956 total edits, of which 5603 are in mainspace. I see nothing shameful in that. This also doesn't count my contributions outside the en.wp wiki, such as the batch of photographs I recently uploaded to Commons. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MONGO's statement below illustrates just the harmful mindset that needs to be fought... how any criticism of certain favored individuals is labeled as "harassment". *Dan T.* (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And now I'm in a "small cadre", according to FeloniousMonk. Well, whatever group I'm in certainly doesn't seem to have the power, influence, and political clout of the clique(s) it's up against... when have I managed to get anybody banned or blocked? *Dan T.* (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Martinphi

Just want to say that this case was being considered only a while after the RfC, when Guy's behavior started to deteriorate again and he started using admin tools in incorrect ways. I personally told at least two offended and newish users not to bring a case (when they started talking about it even though they didn't even know about the RfC), because this was in process. I'm sure there were others. I was not involved with the development of the case, but knew it would come, as did anyone with their nose to the wind.

As far as it being related to the CLA SV case, I do not see the connection. This is about JzG. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 14:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by WJBscribe

I personally think that ArbCom would be better placed hearing this as a separate matter, rather than as part of a case which has a different focus. I regard interactions between Viridae and JzG to have been problematic for some time and that any investigation by ArbCom of Guy's conduct needs to also take into account the growing of habit of Viridae casually overturning Guy's admin actions when he should really be asking a neutral admin to look into the matter. From what I have seen, this has been turning into a personal feud and I think some resolution is needed, but these issues would be rather tangential if lumped into the Cla68/Slim V case. WjBscribe 16:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment from TreasuryTag

• I think that those who gathered evidence of the (very) numerous - 175+? - counts of incivility deserve recognition for their commitment and diligence in dealing with this; I'm sure we all agree that incivility is something that needs to be removed and pointing out instances of it is an important step in the right direction.
• I think that since Guy hasn't really acted on the point of the RfC ("don't be incivil, if possible, please"), he should be placed on a multi-stepped civility parole.

1. Minor incivility: 1hr block.
2. Medium or repeated minor incivility: 24hr block.
3. Serious or persistent incivility: 48hr block and 2month suspension of adminship.
4. Gross instances of anything iffy: 2week block, 4month suspension of adminship and forced reconfirmation after the 4month period.

• The scenario above would provide a clear system of chances to avoid losing a good contributor, but to also ensure that he doesn't cause the loss of other good contributors with his incivility which "even" I have noticed on occasion.
• I recognise that there are personal issues between Guy and Viridae; while that is worth noting, it is not a mitigating factor, really. Perhaps Viridae could be placed on a similar civilty/harassment/baiting parole to the one I suggested above.
• I'm not sure if this is part of the procedure, but I'd be interested to read any comments on this proposal either below or, if that's not permissible (not sure) then on my talkpage. Thanks for reading! —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Stephen B Streater

I've been here for a few years, with around 5,000 edits to my name. And I have seen all the problems which JzG seeks to solve. From determined enthusiasts to the organised crime of wikigangs, these groups subvert the goals of Wikipedia. And while civility in off-article discussions is important, it is only a means to an end. POV pushing in a civil way is not the way forward. With the authorities unwilling to neutralise those who persistently damage articles by ignoring the requirements of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, and new admins often chosen for their blandness, it is left to a small but determined band to tackle the worst offenders.

Without people like JzG, the encyclopaedia would slip ever further into local fiefdoms of opinion, and away from the goal of a world class body of free knowledge. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JoshuaZ

Many of the edits listed as problematic are not at all. For example [37] which is described as JzG closing a deletion review with the summary of "no" ignores that this was a deletion review opened less than a week of the last deletion review on that topic with no new information added at all. There's simply not much of a case here when one looks at the actual difs. Occasional incivility but nothing very serious. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jim62sch

I'm not clear what this has to do with Cla68/FM/SV, other than the fact that a number of the editors bitch-slapping Guy seem to be enablers of Cla68's lapses into bad behaviour. But, I'm probably missing something, and I'm sure I'll attain enlightenment before the next full cycle of the moon. Or something like that. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

Civility is an important part of creating a good collegiate atmosphere, and JzG has been a naughty boy for letting his frustrations show a bit and failing to realise that not everyone has a sense of humour. However, civility never trumps content, and JzG's wisdom and hard work in helping to keep this encyclopaedia project on the rails is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately pov pushing and civility have been known to coexist, and this RfAr looks like another excuse for wasting time and effort rather than working together. Not worth taking up. .. dave souza, talk 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by LessHeard vanU

It is my opinion, which is difficult to quantify by diffs, that Guy has an inability to distinguish between the trolls and POV pushers, those who share much the same viewpoint but conduct themselves according to Wikipedia practices, and those who would afford these people the same good faith principles that they would any other editor. The term "troll enabler" is one that is often used when discussing the actions of an editor who either supports inclusion or reference of some part of a POV or those who treat the content promoted by a POV pusher with due weight (even if the material is subsequently adjudged unsuitable). The blunt language and terminology often employed by Guy when responding to the many trolls - and it cannot be denied that there are many - can also be noted to be directed at those he considers troll enablers. This would be a sufficiently serious enough breach of common WP practice and standards to have warranted the earlier RfC and this RfAR even if there was a tacit acceptance that trolls, vandals, and fringe/extreme POV pushers did not deserve to be dealt with under the standards afforded by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and that sysops were supposed to reflect a better standard of conduct than may be expected from non-promoted editors, but there is not and they are. Whatever good work in admin action regarding content by Guy is undone by an attitude toward a section of the community that does not (always) accord with his viewpoint. The irony, of course, is both that a personal viewpoint (of a particular type) is what Guy finds difficult to accommodate in his considerations, and that admins are supposed not to apply personal viewpoints when judging WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. It is in this manner that Guy appears to provide arbitary comment, judgement and actions in regard to different content issues, and why his self confessed problems with civility aggravate the sensibilities of those whose dedication to the project is of a different tone to that which Guy subscribes to. I suggest that, this being the case, that this request be solely directed toward resolving issues related to Guys behaviour since it is largely irrelevant which subject or individual is presently the focus of it - they are examples of the effect where it is the cause that requires addressing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with DuncanHill and Neil, and disagree with Squeakbox, that the British acceptance of vulgarisms and casual use of epithets between acquaintances is irrelevant to Guys resort to inappropriate language when dealing with editors with whom he is not on friendly terms. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

I agree that the most important issues involved can be considered in the Cla68 case. The same participants seem to provoke the same problems, and the main source of this coordinated provocation is off-wiki, and has long been very open about its destructive intentions. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved SqueakBox

As one of our best admins who works tirelessly Guy is bound to attract enemies but that is not a reason to see him brought here to arbcom. His British way of expression may be a bit much for some non-British people butt hat is not a reason to bring him to arbcom either. If this case is accepted I hope that Guy will come out of it not only better than his opponents but with an enhaced reputation. This is the kind of admin we need, trying to chase him away is not on. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by DuncanHill

Guy's way of expression is rather too much for some British people too, and I believe it is incorrect to ascribe concerns about his civility (or lack thereof) to his being British. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Neil

As DuncanHill says, Guy's nationality as an excuse for his behaviour and language is a red herring. It is only fair to point out Guy has not made that claim, as far as I know; rather, it is people making excuses for him. Neıl 龱 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil, it is not true that Guy has not used nationality as an excuse for incivility as you can see in his response to the RfC, here: [[38]]Captain Nemo III (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, Guy did not make that claim; others have, purportedly on his behalf. Please read the entire comment. Neıl 龱 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did read the entire comment and I don't see anything that would indicate that others are claiming nationality as an excuse for him in that comment. If you want to interpret that posting as not claiming that nationality is an excuse, then I disagree with your interpretation. I don't see how you can interpret "Two things to be taken in mitigation here. First, British English usage is considerably different from American English ..." as not attempting to use nationality as an excuse for his language. Captain Nemo III (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Franamax

In the words of this Canadian, profanity in any case indicates a lack of resort to better ways to elucidate one's thoughts, i.e. if you're swearing, it's because you've got nothing more intelligent to say. Contrast this however, with Guy's more communicative moments when he's easily able to reduce a complex issue into a very few sentences which distill out the essence. I submit that JzG's profanity results from fatigue at dealing with recurrent issues, recurrently. I'm not aware of many other editors willing to persistently engage the problematic issues. Franamax (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by John Nevard

Guy deals with editors damaging the encyclopedia. Even dismissal, with profanity or not, wastes more time than they deserve, though if it serves the purpose of releasing the stress a bloody good editor is under it's entirely justified. John Nevard (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Eusebeus

I couldn't agree with SqueakBox more on this. Guy is one of our best admins and most tireless editors. Skins need to thicken up and eyes need to sharpen; he does a generally excellent job. Eusebeus (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statment by HooperBandP

I've only briefly seen JzG or "discussed" (he doesn't really discuss, he just does and then ridicules others) anything on this wikipedia with him. Though he may do alot of great editing, his extremely rude attitude and ways of going about things are bad for the project. He can still contribute without being an admin. Admins like him and WMC are the kinds that keep wikipedia being ridiculed in the news. Hooper (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:B

I echo the above comments that this case doesn't seem related to the Cla68-FM-SV case. Other than that some of the same users are interested, there is little overlap and there are no common issues in dispute between the two. Adding this just makes it into a big free for all. --B (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rocksanddirt

I agree with B, this is wholey separate from the cla/sv/fm dispute. In addition, if the committee is interested in this case, to avoid substantial disruption, I suggest that it be taken privately, and use the rfc and the statments here. Additional evidence and workshop and whatnot are pages for pure disruption of the project.

My view is that unless JzG is willing to recognize that one doesn't have to be rude to make one's point, he is a net detriment to project by keeping more folks from participating helpfully. Blocking a troll doesn't need rude edit summaries/log entries...disagreeing with DanT or Cla68 doesn't require calling them names.

We have a double standard here at en.wikipedia for user conduct. The committee needs to clearly define what their limits are on that double standard. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry

I'm wondering what useful remedies this case might produce, if accepted. Desysopping Guy by itself would probably not be a net benefit; he would still be free to make the snarky comments that are contributing to making Wikipedia a poor editing environment while we'd lose the good admin actions he take. A civility parole is likely to work about as well as those for Mongo, ScienceApologist or Giano II - i.e. not even be a little bit useful and possibly actively harmful. A full site ban is not a plausible outcome. I suppose we could try banning Guy from AN, ANI, and dispute resolution (except where he is a party) in combination with a desysopping. I'm not sure myself if this would be a good outcome for Wikipedia. But since Guy seems incapable of moderating his conduct on his own, some externally imposed moderation may be needed. I agree that this deserves to be heard separately from the SlimVirgin case; the issues are very different. The double standard should be addressed, but I don't know how to do it. GRBerry 13:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Bigtimepeace

It's probably appropriate at this point for the committee to address the issues with JzG, unfortunately. Like GRBerry I'm a bit flummoxed as to what a real solution would look like, but I think something needs to be done (Guy's comment in his statement that he "now routinely disengage(s) when trolled" and thus chose not to participate in the RfC is quite disheartening - a bunch of people participated there who were most certainly not "trolling").

I think an ArbCom case would actually be more important for its principles than its specific findings. JzG (and unfortunately a number of others) seem to feel that the civility guidelines should not apply to himself or other long term users (or, as others argue, editors with particular expertise). This notion seems to be embraced more and more and I personally find it very problematic. If nothing else, the committee should take this case to clarify what approach should be taken with respect to civility and long term editors. This is an issue underlying many disputes, including this one, and some general statements regarding it would be very helpful.

Finally, I'm rather mystified as to why several Arbs would even consider rolling this up with the Cla68/SV/FM case. Most of the issues with JzG have nothing at all to do with that case. Personally I've come across Guy multiple times in multiple places (often times having a problem with his behavior, but in agreement at other times), but have had little or nothing to do with the core issues in the Cla68/SV/FM case. They are quite distinct, and it might be helpful if the Arbs could explain why they think the two cases should be combined.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by William M. Connolley

I'd like to see this case taken (either here or merged), to exonerate Guy. He is very clearly a net positive to wiki, unlike the people he is fighting against. To return to something that AD said: Here, an administrator is merely a user with augmented technical access. But the traditional sense of the word, that is, "one who manages; one appointed to take charge". But this is what the current structure makes so hard: using admin powers in an area which you know anything about - and are thus likely to make a good judgement in a difficult case - is discouraged. The arbcomm should consider this. Oh, and several of the examples of "bad behaviour" are ludicrous. And, alas, there are too many pages that need the User:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel template William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Captain Nemo III

In order to keep this comment to a minimum, I refer you to this page: [[39]] Summary: I was blocked for no good reason by Guy. The blocking was accompanied with a gratuitous claim that I was an "SCOX troll", despite the complete lack of evidence of this. Contrary to Guy's claims that he would bend over backwards to correct his errors, he ignored the email that I sent to him requesting that he unblock me. I am far less likely to contribute to WP because of this -- that may not be significant, but how many other people has Guy put off from helping WP through his hair trigger? What triggered the block? Bringing the violation of a community ban (of Jeff Merkey) to the attention of the administrators.

Please note that my blocking by Guy came after the RfC was initiated and after he claimed to have modified his behavior.Captain Nemo III (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Marvin Diode

JzG presents himself as the guy making the tough calls that other admins don't have the guts to make. But I have seen him, most recently at Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama‎, arrogate to himself the authority to make snap decisions about complicated content disputes and start throwing his weight around. Admins should be prepared to be tough and decisive where there are clear-cut violations of policy. JzG, on the other hand, seems to go into the grey areas and simply enforce his POV, like a corrupt sheriff in a one-horse town. Of all the possible defects in an admin, this is the most pernicious. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by MONGO

More Wikipedia Review inspired harassment. It's the "we don't like being called trolls even though we are" syndrome. JzG has done more to stop the trolls than almost any other admin...so no, we're not going to sanction him just because he doesn't send them flowers after he blocks them.--MONGO 02:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion / Comment by Privatemusings

I noticed that Kirill's outside view in the RfC has 77 80 82 endorsements currently (perhaps a friend of JzG's could persuade him to at least read this bit), and had a bit of a suggestion. Why not allow Kirill to preside over an inquiry into this / related matters? This can happen openly 'on-wiki' and have the same expectations of engagement that a regular arb. process would involve, and I believe offers significant advantages. I note he's also stepped back from another current case, which might mean he's got a bit more time for the task? All thoughts on this most welcome.

Perhaps there are those amongst you (the arbcom) who might recognise that hearing all matters 'in committee' isn't really... um... working all that well? - the approach is in my view quite clearly not fit for purpose.

Finally; to Jp, James, and bainer - I'm not really getting why you think this 'needs to be dealt with as a corpus' - on the surface of it, it seems to me to be an exceptionally foolish idea. Privatemusings (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbonaughts to the flight deck please! This shuttle is leaving sublime shortly and will be arriving at its latest destination presently! You guys are bonkers! I guess one of the fringe benefits of merging these cases in this way is to give good odds that no-one will be able to follow it at all, and the baby's sure in a helluva big bath.... hey ho... good luck! Privatemusings (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by FeloniousMonk

Viridae has a long history of misusing the tools in order act on the behalf of banned editors and harassment of existing admins, particularly JzG. His efforts are part of a small cadre of like-minded editors, Cla68, Dtobias and others. Evidence: User_talk:FeloniousMonk/Cla68_Arbcom_evidence#Viridae Clearly something needs to be done, and given the coordination of the disruption wrought by Viridae and Cla68 at Wikipedia, it makes sense to merge these cases. FeloniousMonk (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Mackan79

I would reject this case, rather than attempting to merge it and seemingly add one more point to the heap. The cases are unrelated, but it's probably fair to say they're similar enough that two of them at the same time won't work well. However, the fact that we need better ways of dealing with long-standing disputes over administrative behavior doesn't mean the right way of finding this is to lump all cases together. If ArbCom gets a good view of one case it's much more likely to find better ways to deal with the other, as similar or different as it may be. Mackan79 (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by FCYTravis

Much of Viridae's list of alleged behaviour problems strike me as... twaddle.

For instance, the idea that calling something "twaddle" is somehow problematic, is utterly absurd. Laughable, really. I mean, come on, are we going to ban "incoherent" and "incomprehensible" next? The dictionary says "twaddle" is a synonym for "nonsense" - so if I call this RFAR "nonsense," I'm subject to sanction? Honestly, where does this "civility" twaddle end? What words can we use to describe stuff?

So is the idea that removing DTobias' posts from his own talk page is problematic, when it's long been established that DTobias and Guy have permanent and irreconcilable differences and the best way is for the both to stay away from each other. And yet DTobias insists on inserting himself into otherwise completely unrelated debates on Guy's talk page. What does he expect to happen? It's baiting, plain and simple.

This so-called "case" doesn't merit ArbCom attention. FCYTravis (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment by jd2718

I note that evidence related to this request has begun accumulating on the C68-FM-SV Evidence page, but that there appears to be 0 overlap. Further, that was opened over a week ago. If you do accept/merge, you should do it sooner rather than later, else the workshop and evidence will show discontinuity and be quite difficult either to participate in or to sort out. And better, if you chose not to merge them, you should let editors know sooner rather than later, so that the C68-FM-SV pages don't get peppered and cluttered with unrelated stuff. Best would be to reject this case (per Mackan and others, above) Jd2718 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I would pre-emptively like to ask for arbitrator guidance on the issue of the title of this case should it be veering towards acceptance. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To the clerk- Me and DanT are among many editors mentioned, either directly or indirectly, in the above list of evidence. Thus, by Jehochman's rationale, there should be a lot more names listed up there in the list of parties. Request that if Jehochman doesn't give a better reason for singling out me and DanT, or else includes a lot more names as parties here, that our names be removed as parties. Cla68 (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I removed our names. Proabviac and Urban Rose are also mentioned in the evidence, but Jehochman didn't suggest adding them. If JzG wants me, DanT, or anyone else as parties, then he can add us himself, along with his rationale. Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Note to clerk- would you ask JD Forrester to clarify his statement below. Does he want JzG's name added to the title of the ca68, FM, SV case? Cla68 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Rather than playing name/title see-saw, let's see if the case is accepted as a separate action or merged first. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• See points by Daniel and JamesF (below). But my observations...If this is merged with the Cla-FM-SV case, it'd be massive case and title of that case may be an issue. I think there may be enough here to warrant a separate case and name of this case is also likely to be an issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't mind too much as the principles are (for the most part) essentially the same in both cases, but I too think a separate case should be made for the reasons outlined by others above. There is enough, and I expect it will be reasonably straightforward too. But I would like some clarification soon to make any necessary adjustments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Clerk note: I have refactored this thread, per requests on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. Anthøny 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note on case disposition. The arb vote here is clear, the case should be merged with the Cla68-FM-SV case, with a possible rename at the end of that case. This RFAR now has a net vote of 4 for that and has been up almost 8 days, a bit longer than the standard 7. Therefore, I am archiving this and notifying everyone that made a statement here. I will move this RFAR to the Cla68-FM-SV case talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/4)

• I consider that this overlaps with the Cla68 case, which is already open, and invite interested parties to participate there instead. James F. (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Just to note, though there may be an issue with then subsequent breadth of the case, I think it needs to be dealt with as a corpus. James F. (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with James F. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• I also agree with James. To Daniel, there's no need to change the name now; it can be altered on the closing of the case if necessary, once we've arrived at a decision and thus delineated the scope. --bainer (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Concur. It may lead to a case that will take time to sift through, but there isn't such urgency as to make that the wrong way to go. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

---

JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Very unhappy with this. The two cases are not directly related, and this, together with the refactoring of comments and statements in the JzG RfA undermine confidence in the ability of the Arbcom to address satisfactorily the issues raised relating to JzG. Also, how are the comments and statements above to be merged into those already made on the existing Cla68-FM-SV case? DuncanHill (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a punt on this: the Committee knows how these two cases relate, and will make its opinions clear in the final decision. Remember that the whole point of arbitration is to submit a case we can't solve as a community to some people whose final opinion we agree to abide by. It's a covenant. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It also sucks for another reason, which is that Kirill is recused from this case. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Merging these seems a bad idea to me. The two cases are only tangentially related, at best. Further I'm not sure why exactly Kirill recused... the reason for doing so, if any, seems much weaker than the reasons for FloNight, to pick another example, to recuse, and she has not. (if she does not recuse, I would hope that Kirill would unrecuse...) ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I also don't really agree with this. The conduct matters in each circumstance are different enough that lumping them together is likely to create chaos. It's like mashed potatoes and gravy; don't add an extra cup of gravy if it's going to spill over the plate. Wizardman 23:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if those who decided to merge the cases would explain their decision. I have, so far, seen no attempt at explanation from those responsible. The merged case is rapidly becoming something of a dog's dinner, with editors being added and removed, quite how anyone is supposed to follow it properly is beyond me. DuncanHill (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sidaway

Why has Tony Sidaway added himself to this case? What is this 'long standing custom'? Is there a special Sidaway clause? Recommend a clerk removes his name. Neıl 龱 09:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

was going to say the same thing. Viridae^Talk 10:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've asked jpgordan why he was readded. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's a variant of Droit de seigneur, where as a feudal lord he has the right to insert himself into any affair whether or not he really belongs there. One would think that if anybody had such rights it would be the God-King, not Tony, but Wikipedia is a weird place. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Read the first sentence on the page (not the green box.) Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case.. Pretty explicit. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But why is he in any way related to this case...? Viridae^Talk 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ask him. I imagine he'll be presenting evidence, including that of his own involvement in relevant matters; that's the only reason I can think of him doing so. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
        • My quick interpretation of the addition of others to this case is to confuse the issues so severely that no useful remedy will be forthcoming. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Which would amount to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. As Tony is not involved in the case, I have no idea why Jpgordon is making excuses for him. Neıl 龱 19:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've certainly no intention of ruffling feathers, merely of doing what I've always done: add myself to any arbitration in which I have made a substantial comment and in which I believe myself to have sufficient interest to be regarded as a party. Some of the comments above strike me as somewhat over-excited. I'm just this guy, you know? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oooh. You do know the relevance of that last sentence here, don't you? Or are you merely saying you've got the feudal rights mentioned above?? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Well you may not have intended to ruffle feathers (as per usual) but you did (also as per almost usual). I see no basis for your inserting yourself into this matter, really. I was surprised and dismayed by the insertion as well. I hope that either you speak more clearly on this as to why you do or don't belong, or that you are swiftly removed as a party. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The core issue here is, clearly, whether Tony holds "involved editor" status; ie., whether he is a party to this case or not. Whilst I do not have prior involvement in this dispute to make a call about whether he is indeed a party or not, and whilst I doubt my undertaking reading of this case's background would be particularly helpful, I will say that "party status" is dictated by one's prior involvement in a dispute; if an editor decides that she or he wishes to provide evidence to the arbitrators in a matter, that in itself is not a justification for being added as an involved party.

Therefore, my question is whether or not Tony has had prior involvement in this matter, before the dispute reached the stage whereby it was being arbitrated, or considered for arbitration. If this is indeed the case then he should be added as a party; if it is not, and he has no prior and substantial involvement in the dispute, then I'm inclined to suggest that the addition of Anticipation is not the right move. Of course, I observe as such on a general note, and without tying myself to either (should be added as a party; should not be added) school of thought without due consideration of this particular matter's specifics.

Anthøny 21:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I reverted the removal of his name from the case, I guess the ball's kinda in ArbCom's court now, no? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is. As a guide to other participants in the case (parties, interested people, evidence givers, spectators, peanut gallery members, etc) can you comment on why you think he is or should be a party? This may be of assistance to those contemplating what sort of evidence they may yet wish to present, as well as to those questioning his inclusion here or elsewhere, or that of other folk in future cases. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why he thinks he is or should be a party. Puzzles me too. But "being a party" really only affects which section you put your comments in on the workshop page, until and unless ArbCom frames a remedy applying to "all parties". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're puzzled too, and are just indulging him, more or less? If it only affected sections of comments, I'd not really care a hoot. But Tony seems to also see it as license to make statements in the evidence section that really don't seem to be "evidence" per se... ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Our's is not to reason why.... the ball is in the arb's court now..... the case must continue... (being an attempt at satire!) - I shouldn't be too surprised at this approach - the downplaying of the possibility of any valid concerns seems worryingly consistent to me.. Is it possible, jp, that many would view tony's edit in this context as an accidental example of 'point'ish behaviour? and more to the 'point' - how is this not clear to you?

Having said that, I read elsewhere a suggestion to add User:Moulton to this case, and am beginning to feel a bit left out! hey ho, and on (and on) we go...... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding Moulton to this case would make things even worse, I think. ++Lar: t/c 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now Crum might be joining the party too! - actually - that's a bit unfair, I don't think Crum is likely to be added, and I hope Tony will be removed presently per the above. The fact that I am not able to remove Tony myself I think speaks to the nature of arb processes rather well, actually - not very 'wiki', is it? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Tony from the list of parties as I cant see justification for this (following personal customs in this way are ill-advised in a heated collaborative arena like arbcom cases, and especially in this case). I dont think the ball is in arbcoms clerk simply because Jpgordon did the revert. I was going to undo Tony's addition yesterday, but the anon beat me to it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John - I think that's the right decision, though I don't think Tony did anything particularly problematic here - glad it's all cleared up! Privatemusings (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, this comment and your similarly succinct "keep digging" fail to rise to the standard that we normally desire from an Arb's contributions to a case. While of course these pages serve mostly as an aid to the Committee making its decision, there's a liberal sprinkling of keeping the community informed as well.

Bearing that in mind, if there are actual reasons for Tony to ass himself, those reasons have not been well presented here. We have some considered discussion by august editors who opine that Tony should not be party to the case, balanced with a six-letter reply. Please, can anyone who think about contributing to these discussions *yes you too, jpgordon* make the effort to actually add information as opposed to pithy sound bites?
152.91.9.144 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant "add himself." By the way, PalestineRemember's evidence section was removed because it didn't contain any diffs. Cla68 (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem here with an arbitration clerk deciding to overrule an arbitrator. Fred Talk 11:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should redirect his talk page to 'Clown' ;-) (sure it's close the bone... but it's an attempt at humour! - I think John's actually owed a bit of an apology really....) Privatemusings (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So according to you, the clerk is owed an apology by the arbitrator when the arbitrator is following a policy dating from the earliest days of the arbitration committee? Fred Talk 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he forgot to take the mind reading class. This is utterly silly. If Jpgordon wanted Tony's name listed (as opposed to merely automatically reverting an edit by a non-clerk/arbiter/party) all he had to do was say so. Jayvdb said as much. You guys aren't Vorlons and don't have to speak in riddles. --B (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Once a case is underway, I expect that parties are only added after the community and/or arbitrators agree that the new party is to be included, and that there is some indication as to why the party is being deemed "involved". This is a large case, and there has already been some disapproval at the expanding scope of the case.

I do not expect an apology; a solid rationale for the scope to be extended further would suffice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because Tony adds his name, which he is entitled to do, doesn't mean the Arbitration Committee will expand the scope of the case. That is for them to determine, not you. Demanding an explanation as a condition of performing your duties as a clerk is inappropriate. Perhaps users should not be able to add themselves to a case. I think I added that language originally. It was not intended to create a right to add yourself to a case, just a warning that if you butted into an arbitration case, you might be considered a party. (And the remedy might very well be to butt out) Fred Talk 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fred, that's an unworkable policy. Unless I'm missing something, there is little question that Tony has nothing to do with the case and at best his addition is meaningless and at worst it is a disruption. Giving a blank check to users to disrupt cases by adding themselves is not a very logical policy. Jayvdb did EXACTLY what clerks are supposed to do - he removed a bit of disruption from the case. --B (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice the language got changed, see [40] for the original language. Fred Talk 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Here is another change, by a clerk. Fred Talk 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Here is the edit, by Penwhale, I'm not sure if he was or is a clerk, which created the apparent right to add yourself to an arbitration case. I don't think this right exists. The arbitration committee may well ignore such additions. Fred Talk 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Penwhale is a clerk - see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Current_Clerks. I think the template made more sense before his edit. Neıl 龱 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Breaking my wiki-retirement to make a comment here...

A Judge who ignores the concerns of his clerks is as much a fool as the defendant who rejects legal council.

Can I remind you Fred, that the Arbitration Committee operates by the grace of the community, and is only given leway to control it's own affairs. The Arbitration Committee is not a law unto itself, and may well be reigned in at any time by community consensus. It has not yet required correction from the community, because it has not yet overstepped it's bounds.

Alienating their own clerks and belittling their requests for explanation and clarification would be a step towards those bounds. If a well experienced clerk shows concerns over the way a case is being handled, the Arbitration Committee would be heeded to tread carefully.

I follow this case with great interest --Barberio (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Could we get some clarity here? I'm guessing the following things are held to be defacto true by a majority of the arbcom, but welcome correction or elaboration:

• Anyone can attempt to add themselves to any case, either before, or after the case is opened, for any reason they like, or no reason at all. Such reason need not be explicitly given.
• Removal of someone from a case by anyone other than the clerk of the case is subject to reversion by anyone.
• Removal of someone from a case by the clerk of the case is subject to reversion by a sitting arbitrator, but not anyone else. Such reversion is a signal that the clerk has misjudged the matter and arbcom wants the person to remain.
• Removal of someone from a case by a sitting arbitrator is not subject to reversion by anyone. Such removal is a signal that arbcom wants the person removed.
• Arbitrators need not explain, justify or even make their intentions (regarding edits that add or remove people from cases) clear, the edits they make can be assumed to speak for themselves. Clerks and others are expected to understand this and not re-revert arbitrators.
• Removal of someone from a case by anyone other than a sitting arbitrator, once it is clear that ArbCom wants the person in the case, is subject to reversion by anyone, and may be considered disruptive.

Another way of saying things is that if you're added by ArbCom you don't get to decide you don't want to be in... but if you want to add yourself, feel free. You can try... maybe it will stick, maybe it won't. In the final analysis, who is in or out does not have bearing on who ArbCom chooses to admonish, sanction, praise, etc. However who is in or out does have bearing on the sorts of statements they can make (evidence requiring diffs or opinion alone being satisfactory, for example) and where they can be made (talk vs non talk) and thus there may be need for moving things around after it's clear if someone is in or out.

Is that approximately correct? What is off? ++Lar: t/c 13:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• You're overcomplicating the issue. In this case, it boiled down to prerogative; John claimed the prerogative to override the opinion and the will of an arbitrator on an arbitration page. Does the community really want unelected helpers trumping elected arbitrators? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When those arbitrators act in disregard to the best interests of the community?

YES

Please remember you serve at the will of the community. Clerks are there to help you, and as I stated before, alienating your clerks and rebuffing their advice will get you into hot water. Willfully ignoring requests for clarification and explanation of your actions is unbecoming conduct for any wikipedia editor. And not only are you not exempt from this, as an arbitrator you must give full account and explanation of your arbitration actions, it's a requirement of the office.

The clerks felt further extending the scope of this case by allowing more uninvolved add-ons would be detrimental. You reversed this decision. You were politely asked for clarification and explanation from your clerk, it is your obligation as an Arbitrator to fully explain your decisions and actions. If you do not feel you can live up to these expectations, you may resign.

Continue with the attitude that you are a law unto yourself and do not have to explain your actions to anyone, and eventual the community will demand your resignation, or fail to re-elect you.--Barberio (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: As a note, not all arbitrators are elected, some are appointed. But that's a side issue. Looking over the sequence of events, what I saw was someone injecting themselves into the case, and a fair bit of confusion about whether that was appropriate or not. (your revert of the IP's removal wasn't very clear as to your intent, judging by the edit summary) No one can read minds, not even clerks. When your clerk asked for clarification, you rebuffed him with an oracular comment. If you're not willing to give your clerks clear instructions or clarification when asked, you can't blame them for acting in good faith to the best of their understanding, or for being confused. Your giving your clerk a hard time about it was completely inappropriate in my view. "John claimed the prerogative to override the opinion and the will of an arbitrator on an arbitration page" is not at all how I would read matters, he did no such thing, and you do him a disservice by saying that... When I then tried to divine what the norms here are, and put them in plain terms, asking for affirmation or correction, you rebuffed that as well. I won't be as strident as Barberio, but he has a point. Your power derives from community enforcement of your edicts, from the consent of the governed, if you like. We have just recently seen a case in which your findings were not at all clear, and much drama ensued. I think it's completely fair to ask for clarity when matters are unclear, and completely fair to expect that you clarify things. I'm sorry but that's how I feel... I made a good faith attempt to aid clarity and got rebuffed. That seems to not be an uncommon occurence, I have made requests of arbcom before and not had them acted on in a clear or timely manner. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that people are overcomplicating the situation, based on inflated assumptions about what it means to be listed as a party. Listing parties at this stage (pre-decision) is mainly about information: firstly, informing people with a stake in the dispute that the matter is undergoing arbitration, so they have a chance to participate in it, and secondly, informing everyone by sketching out (along with the statements) the rough boundaries of the dispute as the disputants see it. If someone feels themselves to be involved in the dispute and would like their part in it considered, both by the other editors submitting evidence and by the arbitrators, then they can add their name. It's no big deal.

It doesn't really matter for the purposes of preparing a decision who is in the list of parties. We'll consider anyone whose conduct is relevant to the dispute, whether they're in the initial list or not. Case scopes often change as the case is underway. The only exception, as jpgordon mentions above, is the case of remedies applying to "all parties" rather than named parties, but they're not so common and in any event, that's a matter for us to worry about at decision time.

So in summary: chill, the list is not so important, it's meant only as part of a rough outline, and a mechanism for informing people that arbitration is happening. --bainer (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I really care about whether Tony is in or out, is that it has an effect on what things should be placed where and what the standards of evidence are. Clarity on that would be appreciated as well. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very well - Boolean answers only:

Are all users encouraged to give input to every Arbitration case?

Yes.

Does the Arbitration Committee appreciate users flagging clearly if they feel that they might have erred or have a conflict of interest?

Yes.

Does being listed as an "involved party" mean anything after a case opens?

No.

Does the distinction between "non-involved party" and "involved party" mean anything?

No.

Do users have a right to be called an "involved party"?

No.

Do users have a right to edit Wikipedia?

No.

Do quasi-legalistic or crypto-justice concepts like "standards of evidence" or "equality" have any place in Arbitration cases?

No.

If Tony feels that he should be listed, he should be accorded good faith, and the Committee will look forward to hearing his reasoning as to why. Recall, please, that Tony was one of the first ever Arbitration Clerks; it's generally a good bet that he understands Arbitration policy quite well.

In other words, I echo Josh's and Bainer's points.

James F. (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. However, the committee may want to reflect on why this needed clarification, and how to best work with your clerks and the wider community. --Barberio (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks as well. I'd note that some of the things you clarified were never actually asked about (at least not by me, they seem crystal clear already, such as the first and second to last points), and that some loose ends nevertheless remain. As for Tony understanding Arb policy (and Tony successfully and correctly applying it when it concerns his own actions)... not sure I'm as sure as you are but we shall all hope for the best. As for "standards of evidence" not applying, (I'm not referring to standards of evidence in a legalistic, quasi-legalistic (or crypto-anything) sense, mind you... merely practical considerations) ArbCom in a past case apparently foundered on that very point, by not making it clear in advance what sorts of analysis would be compelling, and therefore wasting a great deal of community time during the case and enabling a great deal of drama afterwards. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Editors are welcome to add their name as a party. Even if I tried to ignore the major issue of a clerk overriding an arbitrator, removing Tony's name less than 48 hours after his name was re-added is not acceptable. A reasonable amount of time was not given for Tony to submit evidence (or further evidence) demonstrating how he considers himself a party to this case. It is essentially a matter that should only be determined at the close of the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am neither the clerk nor the arbitrator in question, and I have a great deal of respect for both of them, so it is without intent to give offense that I say that I do not think "a clerk overriding an arbitrator" is a useful characterization of what happened. What we have here is a failure to communicate... Matters are now resolved, I think and that is that... but still. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • As has been hinted earlier, it's definitely not resolved - it's just on hold. An arbitrator has gone out of his way to keep Tony's name on there, and stated that it should stay on there. A clerk should not have removed the name so quickly (particularly without clarifying with the arbitrator prior to making the edit), let alone with an edit summary of "reason given on this talk isnt sufficient to justify the level of confusion" - of course it'd be looked at as overriding an arbitrator. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out, that the scope of a clerk's ability to edit arbitration pages has never been clearly defined. The assumption that a clerk can not override a single arbitrator's edit is just that, an assumption. As has been pointed out, this is not a court of law, Arbitrators are not a law unto themselves, and a clerk may well find themselves in conflict with a single arbitrator while performing their duties, and in this case conflicted between prior instructions from one arbitrator to keep the case from growing further and another arbitrator who wanted to allow the case to be expanded. In such a case, the arbitration committee should communicate clearly with their clerks, not just butt heads and demand supremacy, or they'll quickly run out of clerks willing to do the job.

If the arbitration committee can't keep their own clerks informed and well instructed, it reflects very poorly on their ability to handle cases involving community disputes. --Barberio (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is in Category:Things I can't believe we're actually taking seriously. I am often told that I have a poor imagination, but I have difficulty imagining a legitimate (non-disruption) reason for including Tony's name on the list, for the arbitration committee publicly lynching one of its clerks, or, for that matter, for merging the two unrelated cases together. My faith in arbcom has seriously waned since the "clown" thing and certainly was not helped by the lynching of the admin formerly known as Adam. While that may be a me problem, silliness certainly doesn't help. This is (or, at least, should be) a serious case with serious allegations of abuse of admin tools - far more serious than the trivial allegations in Adam's case - and a bit of decorum all around would be a good thing. --B (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point again, so I'll repeat James F.'s words, "If Tony feels that he should be listed, he should be accorded good faith, and the Committee will look forward to hearing his reasoning as to why. Recall, please, that Tony was one of the first ever Arbitration Clerks; it's generally a good bet that he understands Arbitration policy quite well." It is not for a user to decide that he does not understand, or should not be on the list (particularly within 48 hours of his name being re-added to the case). While you may fail to understand it, in the grand scheme of things, it is a problem. Just because you think it's insignificant, does not mean that it is considered in the same way by the Committee's, or the wider community's standards. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that a previous attempt by Tony to inject himself into an arbitration case resulted in wide criticism as well as a motion by an arbitrator to ban him from the case (see here). Tony did voluntary withdraw from the case[41]. See here for further reading. Mike R (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Did I ought to add myself as well? Giano (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do. And it should also be noted that 152.91.9.144 surely did intend to say above that Tony "assed himself," rather than "added himself." [42] If the anon feels that Tony has assed himself, he/she should be accorded good faith, and the Committee will look forward to hearing his/her reasoning as to why. Bishonen | talk 23:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC).

• ot comment, sort of - If I added myself prior to the whole discussion, I'd be blocked for pointy disruption by the clerk, quite rightly. Ant/tony will not be, and will only serve to confuse the case to the point that no useful remedies, or even discusion of principles for the community to work with will be forthcoming. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Im a bit surprised that arbs have opined here at length, yet not bothered to override me despite my request that they do this if they feel strongly motivated on the issue.

While there are few direct results of being named as an "Involved party", making the list one of the many "no big deal" that we squabble about how big a deal it really is, there is an implicit expectation of the reader that parties listed there are indeed involved, and that if they do read the associated pages, they will understand why the party is involved. Much has been made of this, but little clarity has been forthcoming. This is precisely why I removed Tony - I did not want people to assume that they can start digging up dirt on Tony until it was clear that everyone thought it was a good idea.

Tony added himself at 21:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC) with an edit summary of "add per own long custom", and the anon only reverted him at 02:01 on the 26th. I had planned to remove Tony unless he showed some obvious signs of being involved, but I was willing to give Tony a bit more time to make his involvement plain. The anon obviously grew tired of waiting after five (5) hours. Jpgordon reverted the anon 40 mins later saying "Please don't do that.". Two days later, at 00:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC), I decided that as there was still no obvious reason why Tony was being considered involved, and no clear statement from Jpgordon that the arbitration committee considered Tony to be a party. It is now three days later, and as yet nobody has put together a reason why Tony should be considered "involved".

Please also bear in mind that Tony has performing clerk type edits since the 18th[43], altering comments by others long after they are stale, correcting spelling (discussed here at length), submitted evidence without diffs on the 24th[44] (discussed at length here), and then decided to name himself as a party. Clerks should not be parties.John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the hostility from the arbitrators to their clerk for his edit, clearly made in good faith. If you feel he was mistaken then certainly correct the situation. As but one member of the community, I don't want clerks trumping arbitrators, but upon making the move Jayvdb brought it the arbs, explained he didn't feel he had clear guidance, and asked for clear guidance. Instead he was kind of sniped at. Do I want clerks trumping arbitrators? No, and that's clearly not what happened. Now is it in any way helpful for the arbs to lob barbs at good-faith diligent clerking? Come on. There's enough acrimony in this community, and we don't want arbs adding to it, by getting into kerfluffles with the clerks for making a single edit that the arbs are not happy with. Okay, maybe he made a mistake, but Jayvdb has been polite and communicative throughout this exchange. As but one member of the community, I would like the arbs to learn from his example here. --JayHenry (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with JayHenry's statement above. DuncanHill (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree clerks to a case should not be parties, but, though he'd lose his right to clerk the case, he could still become a party. I don't think it's so much the end result that's concerned the arbitrators - it's the principle. If someone self-adds themselves as a party, then they're entitled to remain listed as one until the case has a motion to close, and there is no evidence or explanation indicating why/how they're a party. There's not going to be a motion to close for some time, which is another reason why removing the name in around 48 hours was inappropriate, particularly after an arbitrator specifically let the name stay listed after it was first removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony is not a clerk. I think he may have "resigned under controversial circumstances" but I can't quite remember... I think in the past it's been held that random "clerking" by those who are not clerks is not helpful to the smooth functioning of these cases, especially if they are, or aspire to be, parties. ++Lar: t/c 11:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not an official clerk anymore, yeah. Agree with you mostly, but it misses the point - having clerked a small part of the case does not preclude you from becoming a party - it's only the other way around; becoming a party precludes you from clerking. We don't know why he didn't add himself earlier or why he only just aspired to be a party, but that's irrelevant until the case is being closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A minor clarification:

• I'm not a clerk.
• I was once a clerk, and was asked by the arbitration committee to resign as a clerk, in controversial circumstances. In retrospect, retaining the most notoriously obdurate Wikipedian as a clerk was probably a bad idea, but there were few other qualified takers in the early days and I'd helped out with evidence in early arbitration cases and did a decent job of mentoring White Cat.
• I'm not aware of having clerked this case. Anybody can edit Wikipedia. In particular we encourage editors to fix one another's mistakes. I corrected a common solecism [45] (I've made the same mistake myself and I'm sure most of those reading this have, too). I fixed a clerk's oversight. [46]. I didn't do anything I didn't think any clerk or other editor could do, and I made those edits because they made Wikipedia a better place. That's why we're all here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to summarize the thread, I'll comment. I got pointed to the first set of questions asked, about clerks, parties and such. Quick answers from me:

• Wikipedia Arbitration isn't a court case. Being "a party" may mean something or nothing. What matters is what rulings get made, end of the day. Customarily the core users central to the case are "parties" (which might include bad actors on both sides, or bad actors plus the good faith users trying to deal with them, plus "others dragged in"). Those who later turn out to have done little or nothing that's going to be part of a "finding" or "remedy" or were not really central to the case, may get removed as parties. Those who turn out to be "the users who findings focus on" may be added as parties if not already. The ability to add and remove oneself or others as parties until a decision started to be made, was mostly pretty fluid, the exceptions being to prevent abuse/harassment ("I don't like being taken to arbcom so I'll remove myself and my friends, and/or add you to the case as well"). Adding and removing doesn't do much (since "party" isnt a formal matter or a big deal in a way)... but it's been abused against good-faith users who've endured enough, so the ability to add/remove was limited for that reason only. It's still pretty fluid, subject to arbitrator say-so, but not expected to be gamed. One of the clerks' roles is to deal with what looks like unhelpful conduct on RFAR pages, orf any type, and that's a judgement matter sometimes. The clerks as with all arb matters make best guesses, but I'd say any arbitrator can override a clerk decision simply because the clerks are there to help the committee members. Most clerk decisions are good, almost all are good faith, sometimes decisions will differ.

My "sort of" understanding of "parties".

I think in part the communal history is, there used to be a sense of a division, that "parties" could comment and others who didn't want to be "parties" had to stand back a bit as outsiders. So naming someone as a "party" was quite a lot more gameable. For better or worse, that's less definitive, these days. Someone'll tell me the history of it, I'm sure. Open to correction, and aware that it's developed over time and changed now and then. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Meta-Comment

Something on the order of two-fifths of discussion on this page seems to be concerned with l'Affaire Sidaway. —SlamDiego_←T 10:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony will consider that "mission accomplished". Neıl 龱 12:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In the George W. Bush sense? *Dan T.* (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly I don't understand what this is all about, other than that some people really really don't like Tony and assume bad motives of everything he does. Disputes of the designation of "party" usually comes up in cases involving various forms of tribal warfare (Armenians vs Azeris, Skeptics vs Fringe, etc) where the addition of the names is really just a continuation of the dispute, in which the main motive seems to be to make sure "all the bad guys get what they deserve" or some such. I would normally expect to see a dispute over one side's adding someone and the other side objecting that he/she isn't really involved. I'm not sure I've ever seen such a dust-up over whether someone can add himself. All the pissing and moaning here reflects poorly on all those involved.

As far as the clerk's role is concerned, we are appointed (I think) because the arbitrators have confidence in our judgement, which we exercise as necessary, but sometimes we get corrected, and its no big deal. Thatcher 01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • And sometimes I get caught in a pissy mood, which is part of what happened. My only excuse is that my puppy was sick. Puppy better now. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Extended comment by Tony Sidaway

With the exception of an earlier statement in evidence, this will be my sole contribution to this case.

I am a Wikipedian of some experience, and like most such I have an opinion on how our affairs should be run. I have also become more urgently aware, over the past few months, of certain changes in the culture which are making it a less friendly, more divided, less trusting environment. I am convinced that the arbitration committee is the only body that can influence the community in the right direction.

As for various quibbles about my manner of editing arbitration pages, I'm a former clerk and if I can't get it right, then perhaps the procedures have become over-bureaucratic. There are longstanding solutions to that (be bold and Ignore all rules are policy for that very reason). Let's ignore the style, and pay attention to the substance. I apologise for any confusion caused by my edits.

On the case, I thought I'd said all there was to say. Here I will elaborate. My reason for interrupting my holiday from community matters is that I believe the events surrounding the case are part of an increasingly effective pattern, which shows some evidence of possible organisation or coordination, of hounding, harassment, isolation and bullying directed against Wikipedians by external (off-site) groups, but enabled and put into effect by Wikipedians who, innocent perhaps of the way in which they're being used, act as proxies for the banned persecutors of their fellow Wikipedians.

Wikipedia has few rules and traditions. One of the few is Assume good faith. I think if I have only one thing to say to the arbitrators considering this case, it is that here we see clear, abundant and substantial evidence that that principle is in need of restatement and the kind of strong support that only the Committee can give.

I don't wish to slight any party in this case--all of them have much to be proud of, in many ways they're the best Wikipedia has seen. Moreover each has clearly acted in good faith and done the best by his lights for Wikipedia. But "Assume good faith" actually means a little more than that. It means, not (just) "act in good faith", but "assume that the other chap is acting in good faith, too." I believe that the totality of the considerable evidence amassed in this case gives a worrying sign that even the best of us has often failed to grant his fellow Wikipedians that important courtesy where it is merited. In the circumstances, it seems that a restatement and reaffirmation of one of our most important organising principles is long overdue. That the people involved here are themselves trusted Wikipedians makes the matter more worrying.

Now if only I had the talent of making people discuss what I'm talking about as avidly as they now discuss the way in which I express myself, I would be a better Wikipedian. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a great big conspiracy that's out to get you and everything would be better if we just accepted what the regulars do without question. I'm sorry, Tony, but as much as I'm afraid this probably -will- be good enough, it's not good enough. Not really. And because I think it's likely to be good enough, I'm not going to sign in - because I kinda like editing my little articles and not getting hassled - and by the looks of things, this is exactly where this case is headed. The clique's had a bit of a set back recently; this is clearly the case where it all gets set right.

You see, in making your statement, and others similar, what you're saying is that a certain group of people have been duped. That people like Cla68 and Lar, and others are just very silly little children that have come under the sway of the evil baddies. You're disparaging their ability to think for themselves and rejecting the notion that they might, just might, have come to their own conclusions on their own. You're insulting their research ability, their intelligence and their integrity.

Compare it, if you will, to the "old wives' tale" of thunder turning milk sour. Your position is that this is true - that the evil people have turned good editors against others. But thunder does not sour milk - it is certain atmospheric conditions that make one more likely and hasten the other. Why can it not possibly be that here, in WP, we have a mutual cause for both: a cause for both the thunder of dissent from outside sources and the sour milk of inside dissatisfaction?

Secondly, your statement of "why can't we all get along" is rather one-sided, since it extorts only those in the group of Cla68 and Viridae, etc to do something to change their actions. Where are the demands for Guy and SV to listen and respond calmly and nicely to community processes? Why, all of a sudden, is following the dispute resolution process the wrong way of resolving a dispute? Equally, why would the Anti-ID warriors be beyond calm, considered community review? Isn't seeking community comment what we -should- be doing when we have a dispute that isn't resolved between the two parties?

Finally, it smacks of naivety (though I certainly don't accuse you of being so - you know exactly what is going on) to suggest that "everyone can be right." They can't. Only one side can be right here and the other side should, in Kelly's turn of phrase "just leave." I know which side I think is right for making an encyclopedia and I know which side I think is right for the creation of a clique-ish chat site as an alternative to MySpace.

I also know what side is likely to win and I am under no illusions that I rather like the social aspects 'round here. There's no conspiracy Tony - just a bunch of people who've created their own fiefdoms who aren't going to relinquish control. So do keep it up, but I'm not stupid enough to log in to call (what was it?) "a spade a shovel" - I know what I'm contributing to and the faster people like cla68 and Giano and real feature writers accept it, the happier they will be. NB: Best tag this one too Dragon :-) It is what it is. 58.108.78.230 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, if I understand you, you're saying the fix is in.

I hope you are wrong. Because if you're right, there is a much bigger problem here than the proximate issues of the case itself. If I truly thought you were right, I'm not sure I'd waste my time participating. I'm going to chalk up what happened in the IRC case to bad luck rather than malice... But I agree with you, Tony is wide of the mark, wide of reality. I think the "BADSITES meme" that Tony advances is a red herring. I'll take positive useful input where ever I can find it, and there is much useful input that originates elsewhere. This project is not a universe unto itself, it exists in reality and there is information flow in and out. Tony is also wrong in his view that shutting up someone who brings issues to the attention of the community is going to solve matters. I'm not done presenting my evidence, I'm still investigating but I am concerned by the patterns already visible in the evidence of others, and by what I've found myself. But it's not about "sides". It's about behaviour that is disenabling to the environment we want to foster here... Be clear, the disenabling arises from stifling discourse and investigation, not from the discourse and investigation itself. ++Lar: t/c 10:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit: in the IRC case -> in the IRC and Mantanmoreland cases ++Lar: t/c 11:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the anon's allusion that nothing of long term benefit to the project will come from this case. My prediction on the final decision is some half hearted civility requests, an admonishment of cla68 for doing the right thing, deadmin of viridea for doing the right thing, and myself and others who are peon recent nobodies but have commented extensively being railroad banned. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are much mistaken. I would hope that our ArbCom, when presented with compelling evidence of a long pattern of behaviour that is detrimental to the encyclopedia and which poisons the atmosphere here, would act decisively and clearly to put a stop to it by appropriate measures. Regardless of the putative motive of those who bring the matter to the community's attention. ++Lar: t/c 11:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I live in hope. (else I would have moved on to other time wasting activities long ago). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Yeah, there's a great big conspiracy that's out to get you" is exactly the opposite of my argument. Assume good faith is the proposition for which I argue. There is no conspiracy, there are no bad guys. There are external entities that may seek to manipulate us; their actions need not concern us, only the actions of Wikipedians who may give undue emphasis to unfounded and often malicious accusations. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I let this one sit for a day, but I cannot let it slide. Your edit summary and your words say you are arguing in favour of assuming good faith. Yet, you have accused an editor with a great deal of awesome article work to his credit of not assuming good faith in bringing problems to the attention of the community. There is no evidence of that. In fact, there is evidence of the opposite, as I have shown in my analysis of the JzG RfC... Cla68 did a great deal of meticulous work to document JzG's actions, and the community responded to overwhelmingly endorse his findings, and the views of others which were congruent with them, while pretty much not endorsing those who tried to characterise the RfC as an attempt to "get" JzG. If it was an attempt to "get" JzG, why would Jzg have written a response, acknowledging that there were valid concerns that needed attention, and asked me to make the community aware of it? Your statement of wanting us all to assume good faith, your statement that you yourself are assuming it, does not square with your apparent lack of good faith about Cla68 based on your remarks. You are instead trotting out discredited memes about external sites and the like, without actually providing any evidence. (Your "opinion" is not "evidence", it's just an opinion) That's disappointing, Tony. I think the lack of good faith here is not just confined to everyone else... Why don't we start over... why don't you carry out an analysis of some of the evidence presented, starting with an assumption of good faith on the part of everyone and leave out the "where it came from" stuff and just look at whether it's validly describing situations that ought to be concerning the community, and whether the conclusions drawn are valid or not. ++Lar: t/c 15:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"discredited memes about external sites..." Oh dear me, Lar! --Jenny 09:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He's right, as you and I both know it. Still looking for a girlfriend (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

#Statement_by_FeloniousMonk

I know this is after the fact, and that I'm probably just being thick, but User talk:FeloniousMonk/Cla68 Arbcom evidence confuses me. What was there when this case was accepted? - brenneman 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It was FeloniousMonk's sandbox page where he was working on evidence for the case. He presented all or substantially all of it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence_by_User:FeloniousMonk so you can read it there. But there's something I don't get here. (For any other admins looking at this) it looks like that page was moved to User talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom evidence. When I click on User talk:FeloniousMonk/Arbcom evidence, there is a deletion log but no deleted revisions. Was this evidence page oversighted? Why in the world would it need to be oversighted? --B (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that where he mentioned Moulton's real name? Cla68 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I do remember seeing some whining about that. I didn't realize it had been oversighted, but that makes sense. --B (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I was also confused by not being able to see no deleted revisions. Can we get confirmed that it's oversighted, that I'm not just being thick? - brenneman 03:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's deleted with no revisions, it's oversighted. That's the best confirmation you'll get. —Giggy 05:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

New clerk

I have taken over clerking of this case for Jayvdb (talk · contribs), who abruptly resigned as an ArbCom clerk. Since this is officially my "first" case, clerk Rlevse (talk · contribs) will be helping me out. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the circus. --B (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayvdb, it should be noted, was asked to resign because he administered a 24-hr block to a well-connected user for calling other Wikipedians "pieces of shit". The 24-hr block has now expired-- but Jayvdb is permanently not a clerk.

In essence, Jayvdb suffered harsher consequences for enforcing policy against a popular user than the popular user suffered for violating policy in the first place. This is an excellent microcosm of what I've said elsewhere about double-standards for the behavior of the popular people.

Indeed, this case as a whole is an opportunity for arbcom to address such behavior problems rather than letting them fester and worsen. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Boy, if Tony is a "popular" user, I'd hate to see an "unpopular" one. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "popular" is an awkward term. Perhaps well-connected is a term I should have used instead. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

MFD

I think that if the arbitrators who voted to accept don't agree to spend some time working on this case, this case should be removed so the issues can be considered by the community. I propose a deadline of one week for at least half the accept votes to make at least some indication that they intend to actually consider the case. --Random832 (contribs) 05:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Even if the community were going to consider the case, the existing evidence and workshop pages would be useful and shouldn't be deleted. --B (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To cover up the evidence. Shii (tock) 04:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

JzG/Viridae

Why aren't their involved-party statements in the merged case on the main case page? --Random832 (contribs) 13:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please close this case?

Jesus, this is deader than Latin. I think three months is a record for a case to exist with not one proposal except to dismiss. Nothing's going to come of this; send this to /dev/null and caution the parties to take more care in their editing. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Although I'm quickly beginning to regret it, I raised a question at WP:ANI about the finding that FeloniousMonk improperly protected Phyllis Schlafly. The logs of that page show that it's never been protected. It's obviously not anything that would change the outcome, but I suppose a correction should be made to the findings. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow ... how did we all miss that one? --B (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A comment on the "Final solution", section "Minor edits"

In the "Final decision" of this closed case, a section reads:

Minor edits 16) A "minor edit" is defined as one making only trivial or superficial changes between the current and previous versions of a page, such as typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, and the like. [...] An edit summary should accompany each minor edit, although this can be brief (e.g., "sp", "punct", "format"). Except for [...], any change that affects the meaning of an article should not be designated as minor.

This is all very well, but it had me checking the official policy at WP:MINOR, which, as I hoped, in the section When to mark an edit as minor, also includes:

• Removing vandalism and graffiti

If the "Final decision" is becoming a general guideline, policy or precedence, I think EITHER listing types of minor edits should be avoided, OR removing vandalism should be included on the list (also, include e.g. "rvv" in the parenthesis). I know the list is introduced by "such as" and followed by "and the like" (one of which is redundant), but I think removing "George Bush is gay!!!" from the article on GB, say, is quite different from the types of minor edits listed in the decision. Also, I know the text I have omitted in my quote of the section DOES cover edits like my GB example; I'm just saying the incomplete list may cause confusion. If not the case had been closed, I'd just have edited the section myself; now I'm not sure how to proceed.--Noe (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern but, as you note, the list in the proposed decision is exemplar, not exhaustive, so I don't believe it any way excludes other (unlisted) minor edits. In my humble opinion, the key point is the phrase "the change ... could never reasonably be the subject of a dispute". In the case of vandalism, there are sometimes grey areas and one person's perceived vandalism may be a legitimate edit in the eye of another. What if you were removing "George Michael is gay" from a GM article? Principle 16 is not intended to be a shopping list of every type of edit that may be reverted on sight and marked as minor. That leads to the kind of problems which, inter alia, this RfArb had to deal with. If editors take responsibility for their edits and mark as minor only those that "could never reasonably be the subject of a dispute" (my emphasis), then I doubt we need lose any sleep over this principle. --RexxS (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Lyndon LaRouche, Lyndon LaRouche 2, and C68-FM-SVDecember 2009

Initiated by SlimVirgin 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by SlimVirgin

This is part request for clarification, part request for help, and part expression of bewilderment. It's an issue I'm not keen to be involved in, because of the ArbCom ruling that Cla68 and I avoid each other. I'm therefore going to post this, and hope that it ends my involvement.

Cla68 and I were asked some time ago to avoid unnecessary contact with one another. This followed an ArbCom case in May 2008. I made a statement there [47] that Cla68 was following me to articles I edited and he never had, to strike up positions that opposed me, and was generally making very negative comments about me on and offwiki, and doing so frequently, a situation that started in 2006. I have not sought to enforce the ruling that we avoid each other, because his onwiki comments about me mostly stopped after the case, though his offwiki remarks continued. When Will Beback wrote to Cla recently to say that his onwiki remarks about me seemed to be starting again, I did ask Cla if we could please both adhere to the spirit of the ruling. [48]

Over the last few months, Cla has been discussing offwiki with a banned LaRouche editor, User:Herschelkrustofsky on Wikipedia Review, a project to restore an article HK created in 2004 as a platform for the LaRouche movement, Eurasian Land Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I and several other editors opposed the creation of this article in 2004 (under the title Eurasian Land-Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and it was redirected. [[49] [50] The article was one of the issues in both LaRouche 1 and LaRouche 2, as an illustration of editors using WP to promote LaRouche.

Cla has now restored the article, and has added LaRouche to the lead and given him his own section in it. The Eurasian Land Bridge is a project that Lyndon LaRouche has claimed at various points to be behind or somehow involved in, though there has never been any independent evidence of his involvement. HK's creation of the article in 2004 can be seen here. It reads: "The Eurasian Land-Bridge was first formally proposed in 1991 by the American economist, politician and philosopher, Lyndon LaRouche." This is similar to LaRouche claiming, as he did, that he was behind the idea for Star Wars.

As I see it, Cla68's restoration of this article with the LaRouche material in it is a violation of the ArbCom ruling that he and I avoid each other (Cla knew that this was an article I had been involved in opposing); a violation of the LaRouche ArbCom rulings that say material stemming from the LaRouche movement should not be added to articles that aren't about the movement; possibly a violation of WP:BAN, because he's arguably acting as a proxy for a banned user; and most importantly a violation of WP:UNDUE, because LaRouche is a tiny-minority, fringe source. We shouldn't add LaRouche's views to an article about the land-bridge, just as we don't add to Queen Elizabeth II that LaRouche thinks she's a drug dealer (though the BBC has reported he claims this), or add to Autism that Scientologists say autism doesn't exist (though reliable sources have reported that Scientologists claim this). UNDUE is one of the most basic principles of the NPOV policy. There are only two English-language sources that mention LaRouche and the bridge that are used in the article. Both are articles mentioning LaRouche's campaigning, not articles about the bridge. Both are relying entirely on LaRouche. Neither of the texts has been linked to in the article so we can't even see exactly what the sourcing consists of.

My opinion is that Cla68 is doing this to continue his campaign of baiting me, and perhaps I am rising to the bait by filing this request for clarification, but I don't know what else to do. If I ignore it, I have no doubt that something else will be round the corner, because that has been the pattern so far. I would like it to stop.

I tried to remove the LaRouche material from the article, [51] but was reverted by Lar and Cla. [52] [53] I therefore opened an article RfC [54] and hope not to have to comment on the article again. I have also opposed Cla's attempt to get GA status for it while the LaRouche issue remains in it. [55] My purpose in posting here is to ask the ArbCom to look at the situation, and decide whether any previous rulings have been violated. I also want to get it on the record that Cla is continuing to do this kind of thing. I have not tried to do anything formally about his offwiki remarks about me (though I've emailed Brad a couple of times about them), even though they've caused considerable distress, but I'm upset that this continues after three years of similar issues. I find the obsessionality worrying.

My specific question is whether the rulings below apply, and whether the ruling in Cla68/SV that the parties avoid, "Uncivil comments to or regarding other editors, personal attacks, and unsupported allegations of bad faith" applies to remarks on other websites.

1. LaRouche 1:

• "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles."

2. LaRouche 2:

• "Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect."

3. Cla68/SV:

• "[T]he parties are admonished and instructed to avoid the following ... Unnecessary interaction between Cla68 and SlimVirgin ... provided that this does not preclude legitimate involvement in formal dispute resolution procedures where necessary."

SlimVirgin 09:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cla68's claim below that he is "caught in a personal feud between two reportedly longtime editors" doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny (and HK is not a longtime editor), but it's exactly the kind of disingenuous, injured-innocence type of comment he's been posting for three years. He has strongly supported User:Herschelkrustofsky, a staff member of WR who has been out to get me for years because he was blocked many moons ago after several editors, myself included, took him to the ArbCom. Please don't let Cla get away with this anymore. His pursuit of me needs to end, as does his willingness to use mainspace to keep it going. SlimVirgin 10:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth

• What looks like a content dispute isn't really. As Will says, Cla created this article explicitly as part of his involving himself on Wikipedia Review with the LaRouche issue. He did that only because of me. It has been quite clearly discussed in those terms on Wikipedia Review. The article is just a vehicle for making the claims about LaRouche—were those claims to be removed, I believe he'd have no further interest in the topic.

• Regarding your questions, I have made a couple of attempts to reach out to Cla68 by e-mail, and I once asked Giano to mediate between us, but it makes no difference. He seems obsessed with me, and I use that word advisedly because no other word would seem to describe what has gone on. He started it around the end of 2006/beginning of 2007, and has continued unabated, either on WP, or WR, or both. He has posted regularly about me on Wikipedia Review, sometimes naming me, sometimes only referring to me obliquely. It lessened somewhat after the 2008 ArbCom ruling, but only somewhat. The main change is that he would try to get other people to do things for him, instead of doing it himself. For example, he posted recently on Wikipedia Review, effectively looking for someone to cause me to be "put through the wringer":

"QUOTE(Cla68 @ Sun 1st November 2009, 1:24am) *

"If someone wishes to dispute SV's removal of Chinese sources at the reliable sources noticeboard, and leaves a message at the WP:China talk page asking for interested editors to comment, I suspect that she'll be put through the wringer. I can't do it, however, because I've been asked not to enter into disputes with her." (my bold)

This has been going on for so long now that the length of time alone worries me. I can understand people falling out on WP, but to keep something going for three years, when the other party isn't responding, crosses all kind of lines. I see no reason that I should have to tolerate it anymore, to be honest, given how stressful and damaging it is. SlimVirgin 14:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

I seeem to be caught in a personal feud between two reportedly longtime editors of Wikipedia with a strong interest in the same topic. I'll explain the background of my involvement in full within the next day or so. For right now, though, I simply suggest checking the article history, the article talk page, and the article itself. The article's topic is valid, the treatement is within policy, the sources are solid, helpful community involvement was ongoing and productive (until today), and SlimVirgin (SV) was not an active editor with this topic. I think the quality of the article speaks for itself. More to follow... Cla68 (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Some months ago (I'll find the exact date) I was involved in a discussion with several others and User:Herschelkrustofksy (HK) on Wikipedia Review. SlimVirgin is also a member and has interacted with HK in that forum, but not in that particular discussion. The discussion concerned HK's description of the LaRouche movement's involvement in the Bering Strait crossing and Eurasian Land Bridge projects. I and several others were giving HK a fairly hard time about it, because he couldn't back up what he was saying with any sources or evidence.

• As the discussion was ongoing, I received an unexpected email from SV which congratulated me on the hard time that we were giving HK. I didn't respond to the email, because it made me uncomfortable. In the email, SV appeared to take personal delight and gloat in HK's discomfort. In contrast to her attitude, I saw the discussion as simply a debate about a mildly interesting topic. If I still have the email, I am willing to share it with ArbCom if requested.

• Around the beginning of November, a coworker of mine, for unrelated reasons, emailed me this article. After reading the article, I realized that the Eurasian Land Bridge was an actual, real thing. I became interested in the subject, so I decided to write an article on it, which I started in userspace [56]. The article's history did not show that the topic belonged to SV. Since it had been a subject of discussion before in WR, I started a thread there about what I had found. Later, as I worked on the article, I noted that I had not found any reliable sources mentioning LaRouche's involvement. I later did, however, find three sources, which, along with the high number of Google hits on the "Eurasian Land Bridge" search term, meant to me that the association was notable enough to include in the article, which I did. The sources are not linked to the LaRouche organization, so no violation of the ArbCom ruling occurred.

• Since posting the article, I believe it has been a model of community collaboration. Editors from the Rail and Russian wikiprojects have added content, disagreements have been amicably resolved, including about the mention of LaRouche in the article, and the page was progressing towards what I hope to be FA status.

• All of this changed suddenly two days ago. SlimVirgin went against the current consensus by removing the LaRouche content. She was reverted by another editor.

• What followed was an onslaught of hostility and obstruction. All SV needed to do was open a content RfC, which she did after I suggested that course of action. The discussion in the RfC so far seems to be leaning towards SV's opinion [57], which is fine and is the way that we like to do things when it comes to content dispute resolution. So why did SV initiate so much drama surrounding this issue? I think the reason is that she carries intense personal feelings with regard to the LaRouche topic and sees Wikipedia and LaRouche as a battleground between her and banned "LaRouche editor" HK. I'll show why this is evident below.

• SV vs HK. The long-time, intense, bad blood between SV and HK is obvious. In fact, it seems that a significant aspect of SV's involvement with the LaRouche articles is geared solely to a mission to prevent HK from somehow editing it, even to the point of maintaining an investigation page in her userspace. Will BeBack appears to share this hostility judging from the barbed questions he put to me in that forum. Note that although Leatherstocking was blocked for being linked to the LaRouche organization and POV editing, SV and Will BeBack have started referring to the editor as a "sock" of HK, indicating the intense personal animosity the two feel towards HK which is clouding their objectivity. SV has been very open in expressing this opinion, both on and off wiki.

• Thus, I believe that SV's hostility related to the mention of LaRouche in that article is because she sees it as a battle between herself and HK, which HK cannot be allowed to win. Unfortunately, as evidenced above, her intense hostility is disrupting what otherwise was a fine example of community collaboration working to build a quality article.

• The allegation that I'm to blame or in violation of ArbCom sanctions is disingenuous. I and SV have interacted or communicated numerous times since our ArbCom case closed. See, for example, [58] [59] [60] [61]. Also, SV has emailed me on a number occasions, including trying to ask for my assistance in hounding FT2 from the Committee, which I declined to provide (she did not use the word "hounding", but that's how I interpret what she was asking me to do. Again, if I still have the emails, I'm willing to provide them). In the Jeremiah Duggan article, I took her side. Note that SV and Will BeBack did not quote the ArbCom sanction and ask me to vamoose at that time, but waited until just before they moved on Leatherstocking, whom they evidently believe to be a sock of HK. No, this is not about me, this about the ongoing war between SV and HK.

• I believe that it is now evident that the issue of mentioning LaRouche in the Eurasian Land Bridge article was not a problematic issue, as far as content disputes go, that was not being resolved by the community. It was and is being resolved by the normal dispute resolution process. The problem here is SV's and Will BeBack's overly emotional response, disruption, and what could be interpreted as harrassment. The impetus for their behavior appears to be an uncontrolled animosity for a banned editor and SV's and Will's willingness and, unfortunately, ability to turn Wikipedia into a battleground over it.

• In order to prevent this from happening again, I suggest that SV and Will BeBack be topic banned from the LaRouche topic, interpreted broadly. If the Committee agrees I hope they will simply prefer a vote on it, or else ask someone to propose it at the ArbCom enforcement board. Such an action should resolve this situation for the long term.

• Thank you for your attention on the matter and I'm sorry that this had to be brought to your attention in this way. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Will Beback

• Will states that as far as he remembers he has never, "expressed any animosity nor used disrespectful language when referring to HK." To help refresh his memory, here, he calls HK a "lying zealot." Anyway, the article was just promoted to Good Article. Effective collaboration has resumed, including helpful input from Will. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Will Beback

Following Cla68's considerable involvement in October with the AfD on a topic edited by SlimVirgn, WP:AFD/Jeremiah Duggan in October, I posted a notice reminding him of the ArbCom's remedy in C68-FM-SV.[62] (After I posted that, and with no connection to Cla68, it was serendipitously discovered that Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · count · api · block log) was a sock/meat puppet of banned serial puppet master Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs) WP:LTA/HK, and the account was blocked the same day it was discovered. Cla68 jumped to the conclusion that he was "chased away" ahead of time in order to prevent him from interfering with the block.[63] There is no truth and no evidence of that.)

The LaRouche movement has advocated a variety of proposals in its political platforms over the years. A reasonably inclusive list is now at Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement#Campaign platforms. It includes planks ranging from a return to the gold standard and the colonization of Mars. But the support of the LaRouche movement is not a significant factor in the promotion of the proposals, so LaRouche is not mentioned in those Wikipedia articles. The LaRouche movement is a small group holding what are generally described as fringe or extremist views. The only LaRouche proposal that has received significant coverage in secondary sources was a 1986 ballot proposition in California concerning AIDS patients. The 2009 Obama=Hitler campaign has been widely reported, but despite being mentioned in dozens of newspapers articles and hundreds of blogs, none of the sources I've seen have actually discussed LaRouche's health care proposal. The attention was just on the posters and the genocide accusation.

While the movement does publish articles on the Eurasian Land Bridge (ELB), they are ignored by mainstream writers writing about the topic. The view that the LaRouche movement is a significant advocate of ELB is held only by the LaRouche movement. No one else says that. There are many institutions that have actual, significant connections to the topic but which aren't mentioned by name. Sources that say it's a plank of the movement don't go into any greater depth. Devoting a named section partly to LaRouche's promotion is undue weight.

While the other aspects of the article appear to be of good quality, Cla68 says that its creation was due to the discussion on Wikipedia Review concerning LaRouche, Herschelkrustofsky, and SlimVirgin. The LaRouche material is not just a random paragraph inserted into a pre-existing article but rather it's the reason for the article. The inclusion of this content appears to be determined by factors beyond NPOV article writing on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  12:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Cla68

Cla68 makes a number of charges against me without providing evidence, and misstates or misinterprets events.

• To the best of my recollection, I have never expressed any animosity nor used disrespectful language when referring to HK or his numerous socks, nor to Lyndon LaRouche or the LaRouche movement.
• Cla68 seems to question the block of Leatherstocking. The constant stream of HK's sock puppets has been frustrating. I've repeatedly gone above and beyond any reasonable assumption of good faith, only to find out in every case that the accounts were more of HK's socks. (Not to mention the bizarre Cognition issue). If anyone wants to start a serious discussion of whether Leatherstocking was blocked unfairly then I'd be happy to defend it in detail.
• Cla68 continues to assume that my reminder to him of the ArbCom remedy was connected to Leatherstocking's block. Looking on my email archive, I see that I did not consult with SlimVirgin about issuing the reminder. My note to him followed his posting to Talk:Lyndon LaRouche, a page that Cla68 certainly knew was often edited by SV.[64] The following afternoon, while reviewing the contribution list of the mediation in which Leatherstocking (LS) and I were engaged,[65] I re-discovered LS's IP address. I'd seen it before, but it geo-located to a city far from HK so it appeared to be an "alibi". That's probably why he was cleared by at least one checkuser. However a different search revealed that it actually belonged to the LaRouche movement's office in the same city as HK. Once identified, it was easily confirmable and showed LS's mendacity. The account was blocked within hours of the discovery. So here was an editor pushing the identical fringe POV as HK, generally behaving the same as HK, vehemently denying his connection to the movement (as is typical for HK's socks), and who we now know was lying from his first edits (even assuming he's a different person from HK). Recall that HK was found to have used socks from the beginning of his editing on Wikipedia, and was only discovered by a small mistake that was revealed in a careful checkuser analysis. He was a sophisticated puppet master from the start. Evidence and contemporary accusations indicate that HK used socks back on the Usenet before he arrived at Wikipedia. HK's use of socks to promote a fringe group makes this history reminiscent of a one-man COFS case.
• The basic question that SlimVirgin presumably wants answered by the committee in this clarification request is whether the prohibition on unnecessary contact between she and Cla68 includes editing LaRouche-related articles. Given that SlimVirgin has had extensive involvement in the topic going back many years, and given that Cla68 usually edits article totally unrelated to the LaRouche movement, it would seem that he could easily avoid unnecessary contact by not editing pages related to the LaRouche movement. That doesn't mean SV "owns" the topic, but it does mean she got there the "firstest with the mostest". If these kinds of restraining orders have any applicability then I'd think the remedy would apply to this topic.

Reply to Lar

Lar's request that I be topic-banned is not accompanied by any evidence of misbehavior.

Reply to Cla68, #2

Thanks to Cla68 for researching that. As I wrote above, dealing with a serial sock puppet master has been frustrating. When I wrote that, in September 2008, 29 socks of HK had already been blocked, along with various IPs. In the 14 months since then, at least 30 more have appeared and been blocked. The last major account, Leatherstocking, repeatedly lied about his involvement in the LaRouche movement. User talk:Leatherstocking#"What a bizarre fantasy!". That's on top of the lies inherent in using multiple socks at the same time, and other specific lies along the way. Given the effort HK has devoted to promoting this fringe view, and that he apparently closely monitors the activities here even though he's been banned for years, I think that he it's accurate to view his participation here as zealous. "Someone who is zealous spends a lot of time or energy in supporting something that they believe in very strongly, especially a political or religious ideal."[66]   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I think the real violation of sanctions here is by SlimVirgin and WillBeback. Their (coordinated?) thesis that this is "her" article and therefore Cla68 has to stay away beggars belief. They seem to be bent on harassing Cla68, and anyone who has the temerity to get involved in anything related to LaRouche. I ask ArbCom for a summary judgment banning SlimVirgin and WillBeback from all LaRouche related articles, broadly construed. Including this one, which is a fine article... might be an FA someday if it's just allowed to be worked on peaceably, instead of being interfered with as these two seem determined to do.

I may have more to say later. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Will

Cla's evidence is sufficient to make the case. No offense, Will, but you have a blind spot with respect to this area. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai

I may be missing something here, but the only possibly sound approaches SlimVirgin seems to want to pursue are:

• An accusation that Cla68 is editing the article as an indirect attack on SlimVirgin;
• The suggestion that SlimVirgin's virtual presence is somehow so strongly associated with Eurasian Land Bridge Cla68 should not be involved; and
• Its within (SlimVirgin's?) administrative discretion to handle the LaRouche aspect of the article.

I'm going to skip over analysis of whether SlimVirgin exercising administrative discretion in this situation is proper (it isn't) and just suggest it would be an incredibly bad idea to use a content related remedy position in the midst of what appears to be actually fruitful discussion.

As for the Cla68-SlimVirgin interaction angle, if I was actioning this request on WP:AE (where Arbitration enforcement usually goes), I'd say SlimVirgin has to meet a high burden of proof to convince me that Cla68 is acting (in bad faith) to attack SlimVirgin, or that creating an article for even allegedly dubious content positions on the significance of the LaRouche movement is relevant to SlimVirgin or any other policy.--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mattisse

I worked with Will Beback (talk · contribs) on LaRouche criminal trials in a successful effort for it to become a FAC and found him to be reasonable on all accounts and without an agenda regarding the facts. I do not believe SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) was involved at all in that article, so I have no statement regarding her involvement in the issues at stake. —mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

The concept that merely creating or editing an article on a particular subject is somehow inherently "harassment" of SlimVirgin is the sort of ridiculous stretch of the concept of harassment that cheapens actual harassment; crying wolf too many times about this sort of thing will result in people ignoring you if and when you actually do get harassed.

However, I do share with Slim some skepticism about whether the involvement of LaRouche and his movement in the concept of a Eurasian land bridge is truly notable; is that really what the reliable sources show? *Dan T.* (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Slim, just a reminder to notify Cla of the request. Also, I don't see a User:Herschelkrustofksy registered. Assuming there is a typo in there somewhere, could you notify him as well. Assuming his talk page is unlocked, he could post a statement and have it transferred here or email it to arbcom. MBisanz ^talk 09:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Cla. I'll check the typing of HK's name, but he is not an involved party; he has been banned for some time. Apologies if this is in the wrong place; please feel free to move it. SlimVirgin 09:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Clerk note User:Herschelkrustofsky (or at least the individual on Wikipedia Review claiming to be him) requested the Arbcom email, which I have provided, so the Arbitrators will want to be aware that an email may be sent in this matter from him. MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment - this appears to conflate a content dispute and a ruling about the interaction of two editors. As regards the content dispute, might I suggest that other parts of the article are expanded before returning to that dispute? As far as the "avoiding unnecessary contact" bit goes, can I ask the two parties involved if they have been able to interact amicably outside of Wikipedia or not? The other question is whether they (and any others here) are engaged in disputes outside of Wikipedia that they are bringing onto Wikipedia? I take a very dim view of editors who argue about something outside of Wikipedia, and then continue that argument here on Wikipedia. You need to be able to leave baggage at the door when you come to edit Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Tznkai summarises the situation well. I don't think it has been made out that Cla68 does not have a genuine desire to contribute to the article, nor that the bare fact of Cla68 editing the article constitutes "unnecessary interaction". As can be seen from the portion of the remedy SlimVirgin quoted, the relevant parties are not prevented by the remedy from legitimately participating in dispute resolution processes, such as this request for comments on the article. As for the potential applicability of remedy 1 in Lyndon LaRouche, that is, at the end of the day, a content question and the request for comments currently underway is capable of answering that. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with bainer. Vassyana (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• It seems clear to me that this dispute can be resolve strictly within the confines of the RfC, and that the participation of the parties in that RfC is appropriate and not barred by remedies. — Coren ^(talk) 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• I agree in general with the views expressed by the other arbitrators. I do not see sufficient evidence that Cla68's work on the Eurasian Land Bridge article was intended to harass or provoke SlimVirgin, which I take to be the essence of her concern here. I do think it could be helpful given the history if Cla68 would try to avoid focusing comments unnecessarily on SlimVirgin, even where the comments are made on another website. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Per above, no intended harassment. Wizardman 17:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with the above, and the RfC should address the content issue. Risker (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Request for clarification: C68-FM-SV

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 00:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Guettarda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified

Statement by Cla68

Guettarda has accused me of making off-wiki threats to out Wikipedia editors [67] [68], apparently in reference to finding E.2 here. Guettarda has made this accusation before, after the case closed. I have two questions about this:

1. Since the original question was already addressed by an ArbCom finding, is it ok for Guettarda to continue to make the same allegation?
2. If not, what would be the appropriate corrective action to take, or proper venue to request it; ArbCom enforcement board, ANI, or another venue?

• Cla68 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Steve. I have no further questions on this issue. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Guettarda

To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing which forbids editors from mentioning past arbcomm findings. If there is some such policy or guideline, I am unaware of it. Guettarda (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@Mackan: The arbcomm concluded that Cla68 had posted the comment to which I referred.

As for the other stuff - attributing claims to sources which are not in those sources is a always problem. When the article in question is a BLP, and the material allegedly included in the source (but not actually present) is negative and potentially damaging to the subject, it's a serious problem.

In response to my removal of the content, Cla68 removed the BLP violation, but continued to attribute claims to the source which were not supported by the source. When I raised that issue, Cla68 responded by using an offline source. Given his previous actions, I tracked down the source and was amazed to realise that he had copied material from the source, verbatim. Copying material from a copyright source, even with attribution, is a copyright violation. It's a seriously problem - it's not like we can run edits through Turnitin. Guettarda (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@Steve Smith: My comment was made in response to Cla68's comment/question in the context of "science-related articles" that "Many of the GW editors claim to be or really are scholars and scientists, yet their behavior in Wikipedia is absolutely reprehensible and shameful. Why?" My response to the "why" was that controversial science articles are often subject to outside agitation. I drew reference to Cla68's statement (which I considered a threat, and still do) both to point out that his behaviour has been no better than what he had complained about and, more importantly, to draw reference to the fact that the forum in which he made the statement was one of these outsider fora which are, IMO, responsible for the very poisoned atmosphere about which he was complaining.

Had I re-read my own comment to see how translates from "in my head" to "in writing", I would have realised that the order of my statements was inverted. Of course, if I had any sense I would have stayed out of the conversation entirely; it caught my attention because it was entitled "copyvio", and dealt with the issue I mentioned previously. Guettarda (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

@Mackan#2: Yep, I must have missed that. That said, of course I looked up the original source myself, to see the context. And yes, I'm always leery of the choice of offline sources when equivalent online sources (in this case, an expanded article by the same reporter, on the Telegraph's website) are available. Guettarda (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hesperian

This is not a good faith request for clarification. Cla68 is involved in a content dispute with Guettarda, and has been harassing him at his talk page.[69][70][71][72][73]. This is just an extension of that harassment. Hesperian 00:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mackan79

There are realated problems. First, Guettarda sees fit to be continually antagonistic in content discussions.[74][75][76][77] Second, Guettarda seems to think this is justified by something he says Cla68 did in 2008, that has already been evaluated by the Arbitration Committee.[78][79] Both of these need to be addressed. On the first point, any disagreement about the meaning of these sources is well within the bounds of good faith disagreement, and does not entitle Guettarda to make personal attacks about "smears" and "dishonesty." On the second, Guettarda should well know that after the Arbitration Committee evaluates a claim, editors cannot carry on with the very same allegations, least of all to support continued incivility on unrelated matters. Finally, Guettarda's claims are seriously inaccurate, including his claim that ArbCom said Cla68 had done the same as Guettarda says he did.[80] In my view clarification would be a minimum here, though it may be a reasonable start. Mackan79 (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Guettarda: I'm not sure why you'd be amazed, unless you missed that Cla68 had already posted the exact text on the talk page here, and said, "Okay, I'll make it say exactly what it says here." Perhaps you should retract the claim that he used an off-line source in order to obscure something, then, and well, yeah. Also I don't believe it is a copyvio to include two sentences nearly verbatim with specific attribution in the text any more than it would be if you quoted them. It's considered bad form in some circles, though under the circumstances that's a rather unnecessary interpretation. Regardless, there is no reason to be so combative throughout the discussion, rather than working cooperatively. That's also besides the dredging up of other events, which shows that the hostility is intentional, and the false statements about what ArbCom did or didn't find. Really, you only meant that ArbCom confirmed Cla68's comments were his own?[81] I'm sorry but that's weak, and is not what you said. Mackan79 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Steve Smith: I would have thought that editors could discuss a finding, but not that they could just continue to make the underlying accusation, particularly where it involves something scandalous that's said to have happened off Wikipedia, and where evidence is not provided. That isn't necessary; perhaps then it's just up to others to point out that it has already been resolved. Mackan79 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

• Clerk note I guess we can archive this in a day or two. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'm not really sure this is actually a request for clarification (the findings in C68-FM-SV don't seem to be in question), but here's my best shot: it is true that there is no prohibition on mentioning past ArbCom findings. Guettarda, could you clarify what you're hoping to accomplish by doing so here? Steve Smith (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply, Guettarda. Since the findings in the case are clear, and since there is no apparent need for sanctions against anybody (at least as it pertains to C68-FM-SV), may I suggest that we're done here? Steve Smith (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• It seems from Cla68's comments that this is now resolved.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Agree this can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Close — Rlevse • Talk • 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)