Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 22

Request to amend prior case: Alastair Haines (December 2008)

 * Original discussion



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

Statement by John Vandenberg
L'Aquatique has recently blocked Alastair, and while the block is reasonable, it is very awkward that she blocked him, as there is a lot of history between the two.

Here is the chain of events that led to the block:
 * Initial changes which set off the chain of events to the block:
 * Alastair Haines reverts, and posts to the talk page.
 * Ilkali reverts
 * Alastair Haines reverts
 * Abtract reverts
 * Alastair Haines then restores one chunk of the disputed diff.

While this was happening, Alastair did another unrelated revert: this was a revert of this, as demonstrated by diffing from change to revert - there are no changes in the Sikhism section.

Abtract has been reverting Alastair on articles with no other involvement or engagement on the talk page. The evidence submitted by and about Abtract was disregarded in the case remedies.


 * Update: There was a more clearly pronounced interaction between these two users on Singular they hist
 * An anon made a change, which Alastair improved; Abtract removes the entire paragraph ten days later, AH reverts two and half days later, Abtract reverts again with no discussion on the talk page; Alastair waits 7 days as he is supposed to under the editing restrictions, and reverts, Abtract reverts, and after 20 minutes without discussion on the talk AH reverts again and warns Abtract, requesting that he state his reasons for removal. Abtract takes issue with the warning and reverts once more.  At this point, Abtract has reverted four times, with "remove unnecessary detail and pov on motives" as the basis, repeated in the edit summary on three of those occasions.
 * Finally someone else steps in, and reverts. Abtract later tags with "fact", over a period of 40 mins AH provides some good sources on the talk page and asks for other contributors to provide other examples, and two weeks later Abtract removes the uncited passages.  Days later AH restored the passages, but has not provided citations yet.
 * There have been only a few cases of reverts occurring on this article in the ~750 edits that Alastair has been a significant contributor. In each case it looks like the matter was quickly settled.
 * If this was an isolated incident, it would be fair to assume that Abtract had a sudden and only brief interest in this topic on September 12, since he didnt follow up on the talk about the sources.
 * Sadly, here is the third article I have found where he has popped in for a visit to an article that AH has contributed to. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Further update: Manliness shows a similar situation. An IP removes a section from the article, AH restores days later, and then Abtract reverts 10 hours afterwards, again with no prior history on that page.


 * He also appeared at Galaxy_formation_and_evolution a few days after Alastair and does a intro rewrite, and it was the intro rewrite which sparked an edit war on Gender of God.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 07:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryulong has extended the block due to the way that Alastair was managing his user talk page. Again this is justifiable, as the talk page management was not good. A big edit war there.

I think there are three amendments that would help this case work better:
 * 1) Blocks should be from uninvolved admins
 * 2) Ilkali, LisaLiel, Alastair Haines and Abtract should not permitted to revert each others edits, or if that is too strong, they must accompany any revert with justification on the talk page.
 * 3) Alastair Haines should be given no room to move in the management of talk discussions, as he is his own worst enemy in that regard.  This is primarily in regard to his own user talk, but a broader restriction would be preventative of similar problems occurring in other namespaces.  He must not remove or later comments left by others, except by way of removing an entire thread after a reasonable period. (i.e. archiving)


 * Yet another update, Abtract has now removed an interesting and sourced paragraph that was added to Virginity a few hours ago by a user with four contribs since April 2007: . Alastair and I welcomed the user, and then Abtract reverts their addition with an edit summary of "rv v".  Please do something about the motions that were proposed or I will need to ask administrators to start helping instead. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet one more update, Abtract has now started snipping at me unprovoked, and also not factually as my reply indicates. After my reply, he starting to take an undesirable interest in my User:Jayvdb/New pages list that I linked to in my reply, promptly breaking the syntax in one of my most recent new articles.  Talk:Gender_of_God was not helpful on an article that needs delicate handling. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 02:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by L'Aquatique
I agree with many of John's points- I particularly like the idea of not allowing the major parties to revert each other although in practice that may be difficult to regulate. In addition, although it is somewhat unorthodox, we must put some method in place to prevent Alastair from entirely having his way with his userpage: during this dispute he erased many of my statements and then selectively quoted sections out of context in a method that, frankly, stretched my AGFifier. If for no reason other than transparency's sake, he should not be allowed to do that. Removing comments is one thing, removing them but replying to them makes it incredibly difficult for someone uninvolved to understand what is happening in a neutral way. I do not agree with the statement that "uninvolved admins" should not be allowed to place blocks. For one thing, who decides who is involved or not? I've had no contact with Alastair since the end of the arbcom case, I forgot to remove Gender of God from my watchlist and I happen to notice a revert on it- not by Alastair but by Ilkali. I looked into it, noticed that there was an edit war, gave both parties the same warning. Ilkali apparently listened to me, Alastair did not. His claim that I have it out for him is patently, and obviously false and I expect anyone looking at this situation to realize that I'm being honest here: I don't give a damn what he does, as long as it's within policy. Thems the rules of the game. It's easy to say that an "involved admin" shouldn't have made the call, but is anyone here actually disputing that it was the right call to make? From his comments and reactions to other admins that have dropped by it's clear he would have reacted this way to any admin who blocked him. Since it was the right call, it doesn't feel relevant to me who made it. L'Aquatique [  talk  ] 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to NewYorkBrad: I do believe it was done in a way intended to mislead. If you get a chance, you should take a look at the history of his talk page, it's pretty much spelled out there. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to John Vandenberg: obviously, I disagree. This user may contribute a lot of content but that does not, as he seems to think- put him above the rules. This is not a newbie who does understand our social mores, this is an experienced editor who has been here long enough to know better- he's been the subject of an arbcom case and is on civility parole, for goodness sakes! There is no reason why we should be accomodating him. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 07:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to JV's response to Ncmvocalist: I'm tackling a good faith user? Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch...? L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 10:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]Response to Kirill: while I do believe that his behavior has been inappropriate and his conduct towards me obnoxious- I don't know that we're to the point of a yearlong ban yet. If we had newer evidence of his intention to wholly disregard his arbcom sanctions, I would feel more comfortable about it. Just as we don't block vandals at AIV who haven't edited recently, we shouldn't ban someone based on three month old diffs. He should be coming back from his block what, tomorrow? Let's see what his response to all this madness is. L'Aquatique [  talk  ] 05:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also just want to point out the thread on this page's talk. It's really quite telling. Ryūlóng and Haines. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Abtract's most recent post: that's not the same edit- the material is completely different. I don't think that qualifies as violating his arbcom restrictions- clarification from an arb might be helpful here. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 12:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Note by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a note re: the inappropriate removal of L'Aquatique's comments at Alastair Haines talk page prior to the block extension.
 * I'm not too fond of the idea of changing the existing restrictions to reduce the number of administrators who may enforce them in this particular case.
 * Will look into Abtract's conduct with one of the involved admins - I don't think the majority are aware of this so will notify them too.

Both myself and LessHeard vanU looked through this and per User_talk:LessHeard_vanU, we couldn't find similar issues between Abtract's conduct here and that found in the Abtract-Collectonian case. Rather, it seems a case of reverting with minimal communication. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Newyorkbrad

After further review and discussion with a couple of others, I've struck my above post (and apologies for the delay). This has taken a lot of time already, and I note the further edits that were made since my last comment below - John Vandenberg has presented enough to demonstrate cause for concern. I also support the second proposal re: Abtract, and prefer it being enacted by ArbCom rather than by the community. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) slightly modified @ 06:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further restrictive remedies may also be necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note, both yourself and Casliber have requested for some consideration, but before that, both of you may need to assist him so that these concerns are resolved. This is the second time there are a problems, but more troubling than that (which is perhaps the cause of my reluctance), Alastair's statement(s), particularly the one below, seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding or even appreciation of the fact that many users have found problems with his conduct. There's a much greater need to make him understand that he has an obligation to make time: he needs to ensure that any edit he makes are in full compliance with his restrictions. Of course, I expect that he may find it inconvenient to spend time to ensure complicance, but his current editing style is a problem - what is needed is a substantial change so that this will not be a problem in the long-term. Absent of (1) an understanding of what those problems are, and (2) a willingness and ability to deal with them, the change will not happen and this situation is likely to deteriorate; he may find himself preveted from editing, whether voluntarily or non-voluntarily. He'll probably be given rope this time, but it's all in his hands as to how he will use it to his benefit or detriment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment to John Vandenberg

I've been discussing this with the person who initiated this request, and I don't think we'd have gotten beyond a greeting if either of us predecided any relevant issue. I hold a wider view; my above comment notes under what circumstances a ban may not be necessary. However, to call a ban unjustified in this case is at a stretch and confirms my doubts regarding your understanding of the issues and concerns here. Rather, what's being considered (or should be the only things left to consider) is the the requests for clemency (which is reasonable), and any relevant factors/evidence. I am aware of the large amount of time and effort others are putting into this to try to get those factors, but it's all in AH's hands now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to Anish

Statement by uninvolved Miguel.mateo
I do question the first block given to Alistair. Not only the admin who did the block is inappropriate, the block itself is not justified. Please check the evidence given in User_talk:Alastair_Haines. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

@John: I am not disagreeing with you, but the evidence provided by the admin who blocked Alastair is here: User_talk:Alastair_Haines, the second evidence is a revert Alastair did on his own edit. I think the admin in question had definitely quick fingers to act. Then check again to her answers in User_talk:Alastair_Haines, she still believes that the second evidence provided is "within policy". Anyway, you have shown extreme professionalism so far in this case, I know it is in good hands. I will leave you guys alone now, I am sure you all need time to analyze. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear admins, apologies for interrupting once more, but you can see some evidence of Alastair being attacked blindly (even when he can not defend himself) by one of those people that want nothing but to get him off Wikipedia, here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

@Ilkali: unfortunaly, we are all entitled to give our opinion, and in this case we, "the cheerleaders", are not the only one that felt that it was not handled properly. The fact that you and your buddies are constantly assuming bad faith against Alastair will never fix the issue. Why do you have to think that a random comment from an IP, in this talk page, has to come from Alastair? BTW, I suggest you to read sarcasm. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

@Casliber: Please do me a favour and review again, L'Aquatique blocked Alastair and later she asked another admin to review that block. Look at the evidence she placed in Alastair's talk page: the second Alastair's revert is a revert he did to himself. When I asked why she counted that as a revert, her answer was "that is the policy". I honestly believe that she acted too quickly against Alastair, but that is for you guys to judge. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This case is barely moving, but I want to bring the committee back to the original re-opening of the case. Quoting John "L'Aquatique has recently blocked Alastair, and while the block is reasonable, it is very awkward that she blocked him, as there is a lot of history between the two." I do not want to see any restriction to L'Aquatique, but something should be done (maybe self-done) to avoid admin-type interaction between her and Alastair in the future. I am confident that if she had reported the incident instead of taking actions directly, we wouldn't be here. I have nothing personal with her, so I think a statement from her that she will not apply any admin restrictions in the future but she will report any incidents to an uninvolved administrator for review will suffice I think. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Abtract
Just to clarify my position. I have edited Gender of God many times over the last year or so - indeed it is there that I had the misfortune to meet Haines for the first time. Naturally, the article is on my watch list; when Haines (or anyone else) makes unhelpful edits, I revert them. I would not support any relaxation of the restrictions on Haines who likes to use his undoubted intellect and knowledge to control the content of article he feels he owns. Nor would I support any restrictions on other editors to allow Haines more freedom to act - he is a bully who needs less, not more, freedom imho. Abtract (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad

My views on Haines are, I hope, well known and well documented: he is a bully of the worst kind - he uses his superior intellect, knowledge and charisma to overwhelm lesser mortals. I first had the misfortune to meet him on Gender of God and then again on Singular they, both articles have been on my watch list for some time. I was highly relieved when he was restricted but frankly not too surprised when he completely rejected the restrictions as being beneath him and certainly not to be considered when he edits. His aggressive stance towards any admin who crosses him is all part of his arogant I-walk-on-water style; be warned this guy will not change his spots unless forced so to do, or you banish him. So far as my actions are concerned I want to be entirely open here: in an unrelated case (with C........n) I was guilty of some petty revenge-seeking minor edits mainly designed to annoy Cn. I admit it, I am human - I felt wronged, I was hurt, I hit back. I have learned my lesson and would draw your attention to | this edit (and the two by Cn that preceded it) to demonstrate that I did not take a golden opportunity (handed to me on a plate) to pursue the vendetta any further. My interactions with Haines have been quite different: mainly they have been on articles where we share an interest (I don't edit much nowadays because I have other fish to fry which explains my infrequent visits to certain articles), I may well have edited on a pop-in basis on new article because I do watch Haines' edits occasionally (I stress occasionally), but I only edit, or revert, if I think the edit or rv is fully justified (someone above said my changes to intros were "good", I think I quote correctly). I watch his edits because he is a convicted bully and it is all our duty to stand up to bullies - if I had time I would watch more of his edits. I am guessing that quite a number of the editors, admins on this page also watch his edits (indeed one or two may well watch mine), so be it. I have been at the brunt end of his bullyboy tactics and I know what it is like; protecting others where I can occasionally (but only if I disagree with his edits, be clear) is a worthwhile cause - much better than being bitchy with Cn. My attitude to Haines is what any decent editor would support if they knew all the facts - as you guys surely must. Abtract (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts about resticting me

I see that a rather draconian restriction on me has been proposed. Even the proposal must give considerable heart to Haines ... were it to be enacted, you will never be able to control him or his cheer-leaders again. Please think carefully about the message this would send him and the freedom it would grant him. I have no particular desire to keep an eye on Haines but, unless someone does, he will continue his bullying rampage and get his way on all articles he chooses to own. Abtract (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am so saddend by the likelihood that this restriction will be enacted. Do you guys actually read the diffs? On what basis am I "wikihounding" Haines? This simpy beggars belief. I watch his edits, I make changes to articles, if I find them interesting, if I feel they need it and I certainly stand up to his bullying ... where is the harm in that? Where does it say I must not do that? Can anyone point to an edit I have made on a Haines related article that was not a good faith edit? I think not. Think about this very carefully; Haines must be laughing all the way to his "get out of jail" card. Abtract (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ryulong
I don't know if I'm actually an involved "party" in this. I reviewed the reverts Alastair Haines made after L'Aquatique requested someone to review her block of Haines. I looked into the block and made my comment on his talk page, and warned that if he continued to purposefully remove the comments left by L'Aquatique to skew the view of the discussion in his favor, I would prevent him from editing his user talk page. When I returned to Wikipedia yesterday, I found that he persisted in his activities and did the same to my message, I decided that the course of action was to (instead of protecting the page) block his account for 48 hours from that point such that the editing of the talk page was disabled. This added 12 hours to his block in total. If others feel it is necessary, I can restore the original block length and keep the user talk page editing disabled.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 11:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ilkali
Problems like this will continue as long as Alastair wilfully and explicitly disregards the sanctions placed on him ("I do not feel in any way party to whatever conclusions &#91;Arbcom&#93; may have come to"). L'Aquatique's actions in this case were fair and generous. Alastair's violation of his 1RR was objectively verifiable, leaving no room for bias, and she did not even block him at his first offense; he was given a warning and contemptuously rejected it. The only reason we would restrict L'Aquatique from enforcing Arbcom's rulings is to protect Alastair's pride, which is at best unnecessary pandering and at worst encourages an attitude that has already proven itself disruptive. Ilkali (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re L'Aquatique's comment: At the point where you issued warnings, Alastair's edit (which pushed him over 1RR) had been the most recent for over two hours. I object, as I did on my talk page, to the insinuation that I did or would have violated my 1RR sanction. There is no evidence of such. Ilkali (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re John Vandenberg's comment: Would you endorse a requirement that Alastair both: 1) accept that he violated his sanctions (thereby warranting a block), and 2) agree not to do so in future? If an editor is allowed to openly ignore the sanctions placed on him with no greater result than an occasional short-term block, then what was the point of those sanctions? Ilkali (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Newyorkbrad's comment: Alastair has actually violated the restriction twice; once at Singular they and once at Gender of God. The fact that he accused the blocking admin of corruption in the latter instance clearly indicates that he still does not consider himself subject to the 1RR restriction. Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Miguel.mateo's comment: I have never called for Alastair to be banned, and on multiple occasions have even argued against it. You, like Buster7, have come into this matter knowing nothing about the circumstances and with the sole interest of defending your friend by demonising everyone you perceive as his enemy. Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I continue to insist that the best first step is to talk to Alastair. It is far too early to consider a ban. In my opinion, all of the problems with this editor stem from his pride and inability to view his own actions critically (this is not helped by the presence of cheerleaders like SkyWriter/Teclontz, Buster7 and Miguel.mateo). By far the best approach is to either shake this attitude or persuade him to change his editing pattern so it cannot cause conflicts. Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The following was recently added on Alastair's talk page:

"The heat is off ArbCom in my opinion, but that means it comes back on us to be bold in assisting one another in conflicts", "I hate to ask people to waste their time on conflict to help me, but I need friends to do this for me and they are willing. I will aim to assist others in their conflicts, but my own are going to be fought by my friends"

What exactly are you enlisting these people to do, Alastair? Ilkali (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Buster7
The fact that Administrator L'Aquatique is blind to the negative personal involvement and the animosity that she has toward Alastair is most upsetting. She went after him as her very first act as an Administrator. It was almost as tho she had him in her sights from the very beginning. She should be banned should recuse herself from any contact whatsoever having to do with Editor Alastair Haines. Her animus toward him certainly seems irreconcilable. --Buster7 (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by LisaLiel
Everything I had to say about this case was said in the original case. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by not-impartial Casliber
I have been too busy to examine the article material in depth, and I am nonpartial as I am a friend of Alastair (so if anyone feels this means this should be disregarded so be it). I note that (a) if I were blocked by an editor I had previously had a confrontation with after (b) two editors I had previously had run ins with turned up to revert changes of mine in a tense situation, I would be pretty enraged. Now whether this is justified or not is another matter, but what I do see here is a heated situation. Many actions are done and later regretted in the heat of the moment, so I would take this into account with respect to events and statements after this point. I appreciate L'Aquatique did ask another admin's view before blocking, which was a wise move and I respect that, but I do think in these cases that even the semblance of a COI can be bad - i.e. another admin should have done the blocking. End result, what am I asking for? A plea for clemency for Alastair, who is a valued contributor and has much to give. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Alastair Haines
So long as ArbCom members appear to endorse unsustainable criticisms of my editing, that amount to personal attacks, there will be problems.

Since my editing is, and always has been impeccable, it is easy for me to overlook any restrictions placed on me. They only ask me to do what I've always done anyway. There is no evidence, anywhere, that suggests I have done otherwise than act in a way that any reasonable member of the community can find consistent with improving and maintaining Wikipedia, either in incidents refered to above, associated with the original ArbCom case, or in any other editing at Wiki.

I have absolutely no problem with the restrictions ArbCom proposed, except two—one practical, the other more abstract. Regarding practicality, it is simply unreasonable to keep a diary of all reverts I make, and consult it. I simply work too quickly for that. I revert multiple times and quickly while copy-editing and receive no complaints. Additionally, when people repeatedly vandalise a page, it is impractical to keep a diary of what they did and when. Again, I never receive complaints about this.

That brings us to the abstract issue. L'Aquatique, Ilkali and Abtract are not credible witnesses, all have demonstrated personal animosity and gaming the system. These things are obvious even to casual observers. All make a point of seeking to paint a picture of my editing as though it had been broadly agreed to contain questionable elements. This is simply not the case. No credible witness against my editing has ever been brought forward.

I will not deal with it here, but the ArbCom case bearing my name, and its conclusions, are not credible evidence of anything much, for a range of reasons. This is a serious problem, that I would like to help ArbCom members resolve in another forum. Current handling of the case is creating embarassment for people (namely the arbitrators) that I would like to spare from that. I love volunteer workers, and can imagine few jobs more challenging and uncomfortable than addressing the sorts of disputes that are accepted as ArbCom cases.

However, while a handful of people's untennable misrepresentation of my editing (which are simply personal attacks) remains uncorrected, a fundamental principle of Wiki editorial cameraderie is being blatantly "bucked" in front of the noses of responsible parties. Unsurprisingly, the ir-responsible parties are making, and will continue to make, sport of this oversight. It's only my problem in the sense that I have to experience it, in reality it is the problem of my fellow Wikipedians to protect me from it. Is it easier for it to be endured, or for it to be corrected? I've been enduring, please correct it. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PS I just remembered, I did make one edit that was not aimed at improving or maintaining Wikipedia. My apologies to everyone for my playfulness on that occasion. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

PPS I've just been glancing over this page. ArbCom members have way too much work. I am embarassed that I only notice this now. I think the decision in my case was unhelpful, but with the deepest sincerity, now I don't care. ArbCom members have volunteered to do a task that is almost impossible, as far as I can see. Make whatever decisions seem best to you in the limited time available to you. I am not going to hold you accountable to live up to what are, in my revised opinion, unreasonable expectations in the circumstances. You have made it difficult to support you, but support you I will. I have plenty of resources of wise and good friends at Wiki who can ensure peace and that you are not troubled again. My apologies that you have once more been troubled by this case. Very inconsiderate. Make sure you get enough sleep, stay faithful to real life friends and take breaks when you need them. I doubt you'll be hearing from me again, but I'll be thinking of you. Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Sam has lead the way for me to say something more helpful. Please feel free to change your vote and ban me instead. Your comment that my opinion regarding the ArbCom case is not a matter of enforcement, strikes me as profoundly Wikipedian. It is extremely easy to respect and strive to co-operate with that kind of thinking. "I am willing to endure your criticism if you are willing to endure mine." That's a realistic, mature and egalitarian view of life isn't it? How it bears on details of the case itself is interesting food for thought. Best regards to all in your deliberations. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Response: I think it is important that I acknowledge that I've heard Florence' comment. I may well have misread it, but if I've heard correctly, it extends a great generosity—a legitimate opportunity to influence a vote. I may be in error to do so, but in the nicest possible way, I take it personally—as a gift. There are many ways to honour that, and I will pursue as many as I can. Perhaps being more open to influencing votes is something I should think of incorporating into my "style". Everyone else does it! ;) There are complexities, but I think that's all I should say, right here, right now. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Accept: I accept the proposed urging of ArbCom to not interact with Abtract, and will cease as of this post. I am heartened that there are no restrictions proposed for him, save in reference to myself. I would protest on his behalf if there were. He has a keen mind and clear expression, I wish him well in his studies ... and at Wiki. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anish Shah
Although, I have never been involved in this dispute nor with the other editors, I have been involved with Alastair many times and hence in the interest of wikipedia, I feel compelled to make a statement. Any proposal to ban Alastair or put any restrictions on his edits, spell a big disaster for Wikipedia. Most editors on wikipedia are either mass editors or intellectuals, Alastair is those from a rare breed who is both. His edits have a compelling effect on those editing with him. It raises the quality of edits and discussions on the pages edited by him. I have found him a team player and hence fail to understand why certain editors are after him. I am sure that L'Aquatique is a good wikipedian and a good person to work with, but as stated by John Vandenberg there is no denying the fact that she has a history with Alastair. In such cases even good admins tend to lose objectivity and do get trigger-happy. In real life we do have cases like – Judges recuseing themselves in interested cases or interested directors not voting in board resolutions. So I do support Vandenberg’s view that block should be from uninvolved admins. Secondly, the case of Alastair editing his own talk page is so trivial that I am surprised that it is even discussed. We should not be worried as how a discussion thread is going on a talk page. In most cases I see persons replying to the other talk page rather than in his own page under the question. In such cases no one worries about the “transparency” on the talk pages. Everyone should have the authority to manage his own talk page and remove any edits or warnings that he deems to be defamatory or bogus. --Anish (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed with User Kirill and FloNights decision to support the motion to ban Alastair. While they may have some valid reasons, I feel following things need to be considered: --Anish (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Alastairs contributions here . With more than 20,000 edits, they are a veteran’s contribution befitting an administrator. As can be seen he has raised the standard of the articles that he has edited.
 * Is a ban on Alastair justified? Is he a vandal, or incivil, or a spammer or indulging in harassment to anyone? Or a sock puppet? Of course not.
 * The only issue it seems some people are targeting him because he is not confirming to their idea of some behavior. And these are the people with whom he had some history and hence have totally lost objectivity of the issue. These are the only people who are opposing him. As for the revert war or edit war it takes two parties to indulge in it. So Alastair cannot carry the blame single handedly.
 * There is nothing wrong in saying with conviction that ones edits are impeccable. If he were arrogant, Alastair would not have apologized in one case where he playfully made some non-serious edits.
 * Skywriter/Teclontz, Buster7 and Miguel.mateo are not the only so called “cheer leaders” A lot of people have shown support and appreciation for Alastair. If these can be called “Cheer leaders” then his victimization can be called “Witch-hunt”
 * A one year ban is like a life-time ban……I have seen good people leaving wikipedia in such cases. Mostly vandals come back after one year bans.
 * Alastair has not done something wrong…..kirill only worries that he will do something wrong in future..and hence the ban. This is like unjustified pre-emptive strike.

Comment to Ncmvocalist  Its not that I have not understood the issue being discussed here. I am looking at much much wider issue here that is likely to result on account of unjustified ban on Alastair. The question is, are you willing to take a wider view of the issue or have already pre-decided on this issue?--Anish (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Redtigerxyz
I am not directly associated with the case, however I have been involved with Alastair as he is currently copy-editing Vithoba. I am a major contributor to the article and "maintain" it. Alastair has considerable contributions to religion-based articles like FA Anekantavada (Alastair was the FAC nominator) and Vithoba. So i am against the idea of Alastair being "topic banned from (all) religion articles for a period of time that is definitely greater than one month" and "banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year". I also support the view that only uninvolved admins should enforce a block. Also, about the removal on his own talk, wiki-policy allows it - Talk_page_guidelines. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Leszek Jańczuk
I am not directly associated with the case, but Alastair copy-edited some of my articles (f.e. Codex Coislinianus, Papyrus 110, Uncial 0212), and I can say one: He is very good wiki-editor. Every article copy-edited by Alastair became better. He also created a lot of important articles. He is one of the best editors, we know, and this discussion is not a good idea. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Awaiting statements. Note that a user's "removing warnings" from a his or her own userpage is generally not blockable (or "block-extendible"), although I can imagine some situations (was this one?) where it would be inappropriate to allow removal of comments in the middle of a thread so as to deliberately make the remainder of the thread grossly misleading. On a different issue, I'd appreciate someone's making sure there are no parallels between Abtract's behavior here and his conduct discussed in the Abtract-Collectonian case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The information added by John Vandenberg adds to my worry that this may be another "wikihounding" situation involving Abtract. I have not reviewed the evidence on this myself as yet. Abtract's comments on this issue would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Motion proposed concerning Abtract, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm still reviewing the comments and will vote when I'm done. Hopefully today or tomorrow. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to change my vote now, but I'll continue to review the comments and evidence presented, and if I see something that gives me confidence that problems will not continue then I'll change my vote. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Motion re Alastair Haines

 * There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Support:
 * Since he rejects the restriction placed on him, and state that he has no intention of abiding by it, I see no alternative here. Kirill (prof) 21:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Strike vote for ban after reviewing the recent comments by Alastair Haines. Fuller comment about this situation, later. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The cited statement of defiance is obviously unhelpful, but it is two months old and I do not see evidence that Alastair Haines has actually violated the restriction except once, so I don't think this is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, he's repeated it just above: "... my editing is, and always has been impeccable... the ArbCom case bearing my name, and its conclusions, are not credible evidence of anything much...". A limited restriction is hardly of use if it's both going to be ignored in practice (the lack of previous violations being an accident, in my view, rather than evidence of Alastair actually keeping the restriction in mind) and rejected in principle as an indication of an area which needs improvement. Kirill (prof) 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that Alastair Haines has declared his rejection of the restriction is neither here nor there; he is not compelled to like it. What we saw on 22 November was simply a breach of the existing restriction, and I do not think a routine and singular breach of an arbitration remedy is grounds for escalating to a one year ban. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's his actions that count.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Sam. James F. (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Motion re Abtract

 * There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about,, on any page in Wikipedia, or to harass Alastair Haines such as by editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that Alastair Haines has recently edited but Abtract has not previously edited. Should Abtract violate this restriction, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time, up to one month, by any uninvolved administrator. Alastair Haines is urged to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. I am concerned about the interactions described above by John Vandenberg, in light of the prior history of Abtract's harassment of another user as documented in Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian. I will add that Abtract's belated admission that he deliberately sought set out to harass and annoy Collectonian and his promise to stop doing that would have been better received if they had been made before this arbitrator had to spend several hours analyzing the evidence and drafting the proposed decision in that case. Despite Alastair Haines' own issues, there is no reason to allow him to be subjected to similar misconduct. Abtract had better drop his pursuit of vendettas against other editors, whatever he thinks of them, right now if he wants to retain his editing privileges. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. The diffs collected by John Vandenberg are compelling. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Will leave Alastair Haines fate as an editor in his own hands instead of having it unduly influenced by Abtract. This is only a stopgap measure to deal with the immediate issue. Additional wikihounding from Abtract will bring more editing restrictions or a ban.  FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Kirill (prof) 05:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification : Peter Damian (December 2008)

 * Original discussion

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * notified
 * notified
 * notified

I've also notified out of courtesy; FT2, Jimbo Wales and David Gerard

Statement by Joopercoopers
Peter Damian was given a limited unblock by Thatcher in the last 24hrs on the conditions:
 * 1) He may edit within his own user space.
 * 2) He may edit WP:RFAR and any associated pages (including arbitrators' talk pages, if appropriate) for the specific and limited purpose of appealing his ban and requesting an unconditional (or less conditional) unblock.
 * 3) He may contribute to and offer comments on FT2's discussion of "the situation" (Damian's edits to the Arbcom 2007 election, subsequent block, oversight, etc) at whatever page FT2 designates.
 * 4) He may not edit other pages without permission of Arbcom.
 * 5) Any harassment or wikihounding of FT2 shall be grounds for reimposition of the indefinite ban.
 * 6) Any admin may re-impose Jimbo's block for violation of these conditions.
 * 7) These conditions will remain in force until vacated by Arbcom.

He has since been blocked for attempting to improve the encyclopedia in mainspace. To my knowledge Peter's mainspace contributions weren't fundamentally at issue and he is widely regarded as a good content contributor. Have we only invited him back to participate in drama and/or dispute resolution, or whilst he's here should we allow him to contribute? I respectfully ask the committee to allow him to edit mainspace. Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment II by Joopercoopers:Brad's motion
I agree with Bishonen above. What's needed here is separation as far as practicable between FT2 and PD. We are left with a little problem though in that FT2 has presented considerable evidence above which Peter Damian should, in all fairness, have a right to reply to. However, there's clearly a potential flash point in that. I suggest Peter gets a week to formulate a reply and then a line is drawn firmly under the whole affair and the motion comes into effect. If there is any follow-up to be made it must be made by others after that time. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Peter Damian II

 * Statement removed due to excessive length. Kirill (prof) 05:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

My original statement is http ://www.mywikibiz .com/Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View/Peter_Damian_Evidence. In summary: Principled and good-faith criticism of another person is not the same thing as a personal attack or harassment. Everyone accepts that fair and principled criticism of another editor's action is essential to the continued survival of the Wikipedia project. But the evidence below shows that my criticism of the editor called FT2 has been principled and in good faith. I am particularly concerned about the pseudoscientific contributions FT2 has made to the project, and about the way he has abused his influence (both personal and administrative) to have anti-PS editors blocked or banned. My actions should not therefore be labelled as 'harassment'.

I accept that more than once these often voluble criticisms have exceeded the bounds of good taste and propriety. I apologise for that.

Thank you Peter Damian (talk)

Statement by William M. Connolley
He has since been blocked for attempting to improve the encyclopedia in mainspace. - wrong: and it would be nice if you could show more respect for Tznkai. More accurately, he has since been blocked for violating condition 4 of the unblock parole. He was fully aware of this condition, and chose to break it, which is hardly a good sign William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: PD has resumed editing outside his parole, after an explicit warning. I conclude that he is deliberately violating it, and have re-blocked him for 12h. In my opinion Thatchers parole conditions are quite clear, and have been re-affirmed below, as has his desire to "punt the matter to arbcomm". Two arbs have commented below, but neither has explicitly suggested any variation in Thatchers conditions, so I believe they are still in force. I hope that other arbs will express an opinion on this matter, possibly even paying some attention to the numerous complains of slowness that have previously been raised William M. Connolley (talk)

Statement by Thatcher
See my unblock message here for additional background.

Peter Damian created his new account and began editing before he had been notified of a formal unblocking and before his old accounts were unblocked. He was immediately blocked. When I was available to do so, I unblocked his accounts and prepared to write an unblock message contain some minimal conditions. However, after I unblocked the accounts but before I could compose my message, I was contacted by FT2, who strongly objected to the conditions I had proposed and pressed me to either leave Damian blocked until an agreement could be reached (notwithstanding the agreement I thought had already been reached) or to unblock but impose a series of topic restrictions to which I was opposed. If Damian had not jumped the gun, this could probably have been handled by email with merely an additional 24-48 hour delay in the unblocking. However, as Damian had jumped the gun, and as I had been contacted at just the wrong moment, I found myself forced into a corner. I could not leave things as they were, and I could not do what I originally planned to do. Therefore I restricted Damian to his user space and RFAR pending further word from Arbcom.

I note also that FT2 wants to prepare an explanation of all the events surrounding Damian's original blocking, the oversight, Damian's claims against FT2, and so forth. It is his right to do so, and I understand why he still feels aggrieved, but I have advised him to let the matter go, and I advised Damian not to contribute to the discussion, as FT2 seems to get under his skin in a way that other editors and admins don't.

I have never had a problem with Damian's content contributions. FT2 feels that after Damian's first block and reincarnation as "Peter Damian" this spring, that Damian began targeting topics formerly edited by FT2 that Damian had never before shown an interest in. FT2 feels this is a case of Wikihounding. FT2 also believes Damian is taking advice from banned user and acting as his proxy. I understand why FT2 feels he was being targeted by Damian, and I agree there is an appearance of targeting at least in some edits, but Damian is a smart guy and was willing to take responsibility for the edits that were being suggested, so I think the charge of proxying for a banned user is not as clear-cut as FT2 thinks it is. FT2 asked me to restrict Damian from editing a broad list of topics for the reasons of Wikihounding and proxy editing; this is one of the conditions that I objected to.

It was my judgement that Damian should be unblocked with the understanding that he was being given enough rope to hang himself with. Damian has done a number of things since the original block in December 2007 that he needs to not do again in order to regain/retain his editing privileges. Either he understands this and will be able to edit, or he does not, in which case someone will eventually ban him again. I felt I was unable to act on my judgement, so I restricted Damian to his user space and RFAR and punted the matter to Arbcom. Perhaps I simply chickened out. Thatcher 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
*sigh* so much wikidramah. I ask the Arbcom to unblock him for the sake of the project so he can edit mainspace, on the condition that he will re-banned ipso facto if he brings up the oversighted edits again. Also, a ban from interacting with TF2 or commenting about him could be appropiate. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: As rootology said, FT2 should asked not to interact with him either, as the dynamics between the two of them will cause cause the issue to explode again --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Privatemusings
what enric said. Really guys - an arb should propose, and the committee should pass a quick motion lifting the ban, and separating FT and PD and the wiki wins. Or just copy this;


 * Motion re Peter Damian

1) is unbanned.

2) and  are instructed to make an effort to avoid all contact with each other.

Privatemusings (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova
A ban does not suggest that an editor is unable to make useful edits; it simply means that the disruption outweighs the positives to an unacceptable extent. Yesterday I was reviewing the ArbCom results and discovered to my surprise that Peter Damian had attempted to vote on a candidacy. He linked to his old user account, which stated that time time that he was banned by Jimbo Wales. So I struck through his attempted vote per WP:BAN.

I was and am concerned about the integrity of our election process; a different issue regarding the elections had reached the administrators' noticeboard the day before. It turned out that Peter had jumped the gun and exceeded the very limited terms that Thatcher had negotiated, although during the interim a fair bit of confusion arose between several longstanding contributors. A few of the exchanges were heated and I regret my part in that.

Now Peter Damian has exceeded Thatcher's terms again, and Peter's unblock request fails to acknowledge the legitimacy of the blocking rationale. If Peter wishes to persuade consensus that his presence is a net gain this is not the way to do it; a conservative and modest approach in strict accordance with the unblock terms would inspire more confidence. Unfortunately his recent antics probably also have the effect of reducing the pool of people who would give serious attention to his claims regarding FT2.

That said, I see no actual need for the Committee to intervene. FT2 has invited Peter to present his criticisms and evidence onsite; Peter can do that via a transclusion template even if all of his accounts are blocked, as long as one of his user talk pages remains unprotected. So an adequate solution is merely a technical matter.
 * Since Peter's editing status has come under broader consideration, it's been high drama so far and the proposals here are unlikely to succeed. Everyone knows that Peter can contribute useful content.  But can he accept limitations?  Every seasoned contributor has been on the short end of consensus discussions and accepts those outcomes.  All of us encounter no in some form.  Peter has demonstrated a distinctly aggressive response to limitations.  It is unreasonable to suppose he would become more collaborative if the Committee validates his persistent refusal to respect his ban or keep his word.  The rest of the community is not a testing ground for shaky hypotheses; we are encyclopedia editors--not guinea pigs.  I'd like to see him back as much as anyone; he has much to offer.  But on principle I go for the opposite approach.  Let him sit on the sidelines an appropriate period of time, then ease his restrictions in stages and under mentorship.  I've seen much better results that way.  Durova Charge! 03:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This request has exceeded the normal complexity for its current format. At its present size it undoubtedly creates accessibility problems for users with slow connections.  Respectfully request this proceed on its own page as a new case.  Durova Charge! 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion from rootology
If Peter has said he understands what went wrong now, and just wants to get back to editing articles and avoiding FT2, and FT2 wants to avoid Peter, why not just ask them to both just avoid/recuse from each other on anything (if someone has to Arb or Admin on Peter, it's not like we have any great shortage of people) so that everyone can get back to what they do best and end any silly drama? Probably just a quick up and down motion from the AC confirming that Peter is unblocked and asked to avoid FT2, and FT2 is asked to avoid Peter, and then a year of drama goes away and we get back a good content writer and free up FT2 to do his AC stuff on other issues. There is proof that such things work, asking parties to just avoid each other. FT2 actually suggested himself the very same solution in regards to myself and the other fellow in August...

"It's going to be hard for him if he gets addressed with critical or skeptical comments whilst trying to reacquaint himself with editing. That tends to be hard for anybody. I think your point's made, that you have concerns whether he should be considering proposing remedies, but I'd ask that the concern is dropped. It's been stated a few times; doubtless noted too. He'll have a fair chance, same as anyone else unblocked. If you'd be able to avoid interacting with him, it would possibly make it easier on him to avoid interacting back with you as well. - FT2"

...and it's worked out pretty darn well, I think. If everyone is willing to suck it up for the good of everyone else, then a year from now this could be a historical footnote and nothing more. rootology ( C )( T ) 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested proposal
1) For the sake of everyone, FT2 and Peter Damian are banned from any interaction or commentary about each other, broadly construed, and are required to recuse from each other on any issues or Wikipedia functions, up to and including the Arbitration process. Additionally, both users are barred from editing, commenting, or administrating on any topics or disputes related to Neuro-linguistic programming, broadly construed, up to and including the Arbitration process.
 * Comment: I can't see how else else we're going to ever have peace. See also here. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to AGK. I agree, but no one is exempt from the greater good of this site--not Jimmy, not sitting arbs, not ex-arbs, not admins. If a user dug their hole, it is what it is unfortunately. rootology ( C )( T ) 19:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai
I stumbled across this situation after the initial stage of back and forth block and unblock had proceeded, and the unblock conditions had been established. Peter Damian had voted before those unblock conditions were made clear, with the confusion described by Thatcher. I familiarized myself as best I could with the timeline of events with the Peter Damian II account, and then in my judgment as an unofficial election clerk, administrator, and plain old Wikipedian, I felt that Peter Damian did not have suffrage (yet) for this election, so I indented to votes and left a message on Damian's page to that extent, and watchlisted the page in case Damian responded. In the meantime a number of other editors had what I will politely call a back and forth on the Peter Damian II talk page. I left this message which I now regret targeting solely at Peter Damian. After that, I noticed a conversation betwween Peter Damian and MBisanz concerning an autoblock, apparently Peter Damian had attempted to edit the Medieval philosophy article. I asked Peter Damian to clarify if his unblock terms had changed, did so again/warned him when he ignored me and continued to edit. Peter Damian gave what I felt was a rather unhelpful response, had continued to edit past my warning, so I then blocked him for violation of his unblock terms.

Update:16:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Peter Damian edited the Dark Ages talk page, was warned and then blocked by William M. Connolley. I've asked WMC to unblock Peter Damian, and have also suggested to Peter Damian a way to move forward on that particular issue. As it stands currently, I believe that there is an explicit and easy to follow editing restriction on Peter Damian, and we'll move so much faster and cleaner on this if he would follow that restriction until it is overturned or modified. I personally have no objection to the terms being modified in general, but I'm not exactly eager to modify terms while they're being violated willfully, as it appears is happening now. I don't know a thing about Peter Damian's article contribution - I don't particularly care to look, I assume he is useful there and that my fellow Wikipedians are correct when they suggest it is not at issue. I just think he should stop violating his terms so we can get to the business of fixing them.--Tznkai (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Get a move on. Wikipedian, an administrator, and an Arbitration Committee clerk, I feel a duty to protect our processes from their failures, so let me be blunt. This situation must be resolved before the new Committee terms take effect. The impact of being asked to resolve a dispute involving a fellow Arbiter as the first order of business risks unraveling the working relationships within the Committee before they begin to form. Aside from being blatantly unfair and cruel, this situation will exaggerate the consequences any newbie mistakes by new Arbiters and the bad blood may well stain the Committee's reputation with the community for the entirety of the new Arbiters' terms: three years of already difficult work undercut by this Committee's failure to act. This request must be resolved - that need is paramount, perhaps even at the price of doing it "right" - because doing nothing is far more wrong. You have a responsibility: fulfill it.

My position in summary:
 * Peter Damian needs to stop violating his terms, which at this point do not include anything in main or article talk space.
 * Blocks are the logical consequence to Peter Damian's actions, and the two short ones so far implemented are reasonable, if not always desirable.
 * The Committee should review Peter Damian's editing terms and modify them to allow some sort of article editing OR specifically refer the matter to the Community (Please don't, see below)
 * The regular cast of Wikipedians surrounding Peter Damian and related fora and subsequent drama should kindly stay the hell out of it. I'll leave myself if so desired.
 * Whatever is decided should attempt to give both Peter Damian and FT2 some sort of piece of mind and ability to work in the environment - vindication however, should be the lowest of all priorities. If one or both is unwilling to bury the hatchet (I do not care who) I would like both of them to at least stop talking about it for the time being.--Tznkai (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said already, what Rootology proposes is a good idea - I just want this over and done with.--Tznkai (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee has an obligation to resolve this dispute before the new arbitration committee begins their terms. --Tznkai (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by FT2

 * Statement removed due to excessive length. Kirill (prof) 05:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence being summed up in a redacted form here.

Unfortunately Damian's behavior is not simple, and a large number of people have been misled by his repeated claims. A number of smoke screens exist which need daylight to disinfect. The evidence in summary shows:

Specifically, every unblock given on good faith or on promise of improvement or cessation, was followed by a return to this behavior. Most block appeals were marked by either at least one dishonest statement to present the request for unblock in a more favorable light, or by reneging or other disruptive conduct afterwards. Examples from 5 different unblocks or unblock requests, and 3 examples of serious other conduct (threats, etc) are evidenced. Although a "good editor" in his historic areas of interest, on a few topics which he associates with myself (and/or, has gained an interest via the banned pov warrior HeadleyDown who also warred those topics), Damian is a heavy duty and repeated pov warrior and engages in repeated "bad faith" editing. He edits with, moves to the same topics as (and fervently defends), a user who has multiple Arbcom-related and community bans for exactly this behavior. Evidenced, and also evidenced he has played "hard and fast" with the truth, denying that a sock was such when he almost certainly knew. There is no "grudge", that's a Damian invention. I've tried my best to avoid him for a year now, but he's continued. In this RFAR, I have made an open willing commitment to avoid him, which will be kept regardless. Even at RFAR: "[Restriction] is not acceptable... [If I am restricted I would be] quite happy... to continue the work I have begun with academics who are concerned about all sorts of conflict of interest in Wikipedia. Very happy." 1/ Damian's block was an "Arbcom only" unblock, as he requested, but this was apparently not publicly known; 2/ HeadleyDown's blocking was widely and carefully checked, not just "one person's view"; 3/ virtually none of Damian's claims stand up when tested; and in summary, 4/ Damian has overall been highly untruthful.
 * 1) Peter Damian's unblocks have almost all been obtained via untruthful statements, or reneged promises.
 * 1) Damian has a track record of heavy duty pov warring on certain mainspace topics.
 * 1) Damian does this in conjunction with a user previously banned for the same edit warring.
 * 1) I have tried to avoid Damian, but he has not been willing.
 * 1) Damian continues to see threats and coercion attempts as a way forward.
 * 1) Other points.

Evidence is about 80% done, needing some cites and tidying/brevifying to be ready. The draft can be found at the above link. I will note when it's done.

FT2 (Talk 17:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uncle uncle uncle
The previous Jimbo block stated: "User says he is leaving. Good timing. Please do not unblock without approval from me and/or ArbCom"  Now Jimbi has said: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Damian_II&diff=255936935&oldid=255936051 "I responded to an inquiry by Thatcher saying that I neither support nor oppose this. I should not be considered any obstacle in this situation. Apparently there is an agreement which resolves all the outstanding issues. I am hopeful for the future." Why is the arbitration committee looking into it? Are they really parsing the original block statement "without approval from me and/or Arbcom" to mean that now that Jimbo has removed his opposition that the ArbCom approval must also come to satisfy the 'and' portion of the requirement?  Does every single issue that people have a disagreement on need to be decided by the to the Arbitration Committee?

Can't anyone blow their own nose any more? Uncle uncle uncle 00:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe
Just a procedural note that I have, per his request, renamed User:Peter Damian II to User:Peter Damian as a partial solution to the password issue. As a more general point, one way or another this user should be able to edit articles. It seems ludicrous to me to have unblocked this person but not to allow him to get on with editing content, something clearly to the project's benefit. WJBscribe (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin
I ask the ArbCom or Thatcher to allow Peter to edit in mainspace. FT2 seems to be exercising a veto, which isn't appropriate. I've several times been in a situation where users who tried to out me were unblocked without my being consulted, and I know how hurtful it is &mdash; e.g. Jimbo unblocked Brandt and FloNight unblocked Poetlister, both without even telling me &mdash; so I agree that FT2 should have input. But that can't amount to a veto. SlimVirgin talk| edits 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Question for FT2
FT2, you invited people to ask about any conduct of yours that appeared problematic.

You wrote on July 4, 2008 that you didn't know your early edits to Zoophilia had been oversighted. These were the edits Peter Damian drew attention to during the 2007 ArbCom elections, because he felt they showed a POV that concerned him. David G oversighted them in December 2007.

Your post implies that David took it upon himself to oversight your edits. You didn't ask him to do it, and he didn't tell you he'd done it. In fact, the first you heard of it was seven months later. Is that correct? SlimVirgin talk| edits 02:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking once more
FT2 declines to answer my question, arguing that it's irrelevant. 

I disagree. The impression I get here is of a less-than-honest arbitrator who managed to get a good editor, Peter, banned because he tried to draw the community's attention to certain issues during the election; who has hounded another editor, Giano, who pointed out some of the same concerns; and who succeeded in getting an admin (me) desysopped for reversing his block of Giano &mdash; referring, as background to the desysopping, to previous cases I was involved in, some of which the same arbitrator had succeeded in distorting. And who is now trying to ensure that, if Peter is allowed back, he's restricted in what he can say and where he can edit, even though he has a PhD that's directly relevant to at least one of those areas.

If I'm doing you an injustice, FT2, I ask you most sincerely to answer the question of whether your statement of July 4, 2008 was true, namely whether that was the first time you'd heard of the oversighting, during the 2007 ArbCom election, of your early edits. 

If you can show that it was true, I'll happily apologize in public. If it was not true, I ask that you resign from the committee. SlimVirgin talk| edits 04:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2's edits
I took a look today for the first time at FT2's edits to articles on Neurolinguistic programming. Quite a bit of NLP touches on philosophy, particularly where the nature of knowledge and perception is discussed. As someone with a background in philosophy, I agree with Peter Damian (who is a philosopher) that the material FT2 has written needs to be cleaned up. A great deal of it consists either of platitudes or nonsensical original research, and Peter's brief involvement has led to improvement.

One example: FT2 created Principles of NLP. This is a version of it that consists entirely of FT2's writing. Some of it is meaningless; for example, "Objectivity attempts to be the study of reality." (Objectivity is not the study of anything, nor does it "attempt" to be anything at all.) Or "Subjectivity ... assumes that ... there may be an absolute reality, and knowing it may be beneficial ..." (But subjectivity neither assumes nor knows anything, least of all that absolute reality may be "beneficial," whatever that might mean.) The whole article is written in this tone, with no sources.

In August 11 this year, Peter Damian nominated it and several others for deletion. It was agreed that, instead of deleting them, they'd be redirected and merged into the main article on NLP, so thanks to Peter, it has gone.

What's needed now is for others with qualifications or knowledge in this area (philosophy, psychology, psychiatry) to clean up anything that's left. I would also ask the ArbCom why they're tolerating this. Brad, if you knew an editor was writing poor material about law, would you consider even for a minute placing an editing restriction on a law professor who had tried to clean it up &mdash; and, further, a restriction suggested by the person who had written the poor material in the first place? Something has gone badly wrong with this project if that's the situation we're in. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Patience exhausted from Bishonen
Can the committee please promptly decide whether this ban/unban is within their remit? Is it really up to FT2, a highly involved user, to speak for the committee and to rescind the unban agreement already reached, through Thatcher's efforts? ? It's intolerable to keep Peter Damian dangling, and unable to edit articles, while FT2 composes his statement. It's unseemly, this arrant contrast between the tender princess-and-the-pea consideration of FT2's ancient grudge shown by the committee (I assume, "the committee" in the sense of the majority of arbiters?), versus the blind eye they (again, presumably most of them?) turn to the situation of a banned, snubbed, ignored, and mobbed user—a hard-working expert contributor, yet—with a certain propensity for losing his temper—and wouldn't you have by now, dear reader? I urge the committee to approve, for the duration, the original unblocking terms, according to which PD would be able to edit freely: the terms which Thatcher was pressured to abandon at the instigation of FT2. Please apply these unblock conditions as originally planned. When FT2's statement eventually appears, the (IMO absurd, but whatever) ban from editing mainspace can always be reinstated, if FT2's statement should give a basis for it. Bishonen | talk 01:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC).

Comment II by Bishonen: Brad's motion
The central part of Newyorkbrad's motion below reads: "Peter Damian is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly), about FT2 on any page in Wikipedia." This is an unusually one-sided remedy. Having to some extent followed the exchanges between PD and FT2 over the past year or so, I urge that the motion be made symmetrical. Something like this: "Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly), about each other on any page in Wikipedia.". I've grasped that you "do not approve of certain aspects of Peter Damian's conduct", Brad, but do you approve of all aspects of FT2's conduct? Whether or not, you are surely aware that not everybody does. It's unreasonable and unjust to leave FT2 free to "interact" with PD—say, by posting accusations and self-praise on PD's talkpage—while enjoining PD from "interacting" with FT2—say, by replying. The motion offered has the smell of compromise and exudes unease. It reads uncomfortably. Its central idea of a single individual "interacting" is incoherent, since "interact" is a word expressing reciprocity. See Oxford English Dictionary, interact: "To act reciprocally, to act on each other." Peter Damian and FT2 have been acting reciprocally, acting "on" each other. Please provide for this in the motion. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

Addition:Bishonen III on motion 1.1
I'm happy to see Kirill's motion 1.1 proposing the kind of mutual ban on interaction between Peter Damian and FT2 which I proposed just above, instead of merely a ban on Peter Damian interacting with FT2. But IMO the present situation calls for a wholly mutual motion. If Peter Damian is to be blocked if he comments on FT2, then FT2 should be blocked if he comments on Peter Damian. Again, interaction is a two-way street; you can't interact all by yourself; and in this affair, there has been baiting by both users. It would be great to see the ArbCom take the moral high ground and acknowledge that, other things being equal, it is more, not less, important to restrain the more influential of the two users. As Flo points out in the "Arbitrator views and discussion" section below, FT2 and Peter Damian have been "advised" to avoid each other. Please carry through this symmetrical advice in a symmetrical motion! Suggestion: '''Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to comment to or on each other in any way (directly or indirectly) on any page in Wikipedia. Should either of them do so, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.''' Please note that this suggestion leaves out the "or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack," both because it's not appropriate to FT2, and because the ArbCom seems to be belatedly coming round to managing without "civility paroles". (See Question by Tex below: sorry I missed that, Tex.) Bishonen | talk 19:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC).

Statement by Snowded
Peter has made outstanding contributions to content over the years and his absence from editing reflects badly on WIkipedia. The edits which got peter banned in the first place were no worse (in fact milder) than many a comment and exchange which goes unpunished on controversial pages daily (come to those on Ireland if you want examples). While Arbcom members may need some additional protection they also need a degree of robustness and should not need protecting like some tender and fragile orchid. I fully endorse the comments by Bishonen above. -- Snowded  TALK  09:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry
I was one of the administrators trying to clean up this mess last December. I've watched it since, though largely stayed out of it since then. Having watched FT2's conduct in past periods when Damian was unblocked, I agree with the prior commentators that the two should both be restricted from commenting on one another. Indeed, FT2's conduct toward Damian and descriptions of Damian were in my eyes part of the problem even before Damian was first blocked, and they haven't really gotten any better. GRBerry 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I doubt the email evidence from last December is still particularly relevant, however I still have copies of all that was sent to me. GRB

Meta-comment by Apoc2400
Could we avoid bringing in the whole wiki-drama cast? I don't think that benefits Peter Damian or anyone else.

Question on Motion 1.1 by Tex
I have no dog in this fight whatsoever, but the new motion doesn't sit right. The new motion says that Peter and FT2 cannot interact with or comment on each other on any page on the wiki. It then sets forth how Peter can be blocked if he comments on FT2. What happens to FT2 if he comments on Peter? This motion cannot be enforced unless there are consequences for FT2 as well as for Peter. Are we going to be fair about this? Tex (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Will Beback
Motion 1.1 says: "Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia." But already there is a dispute over "territory". Peter Damian says: "It also includes him not interfering with my work on articles related tangentially to linguistics such as Neurolinguistic programming. Can I simply point out my PhD is in a linguistics related area?"

First, Neuro-linguistic programming has little to do with linguistics in the conventional sense. Second, FT2 has been editing that article since 2004 in addition to editing related topics. A simple way of determining who has the "right of way" on a topic would be who edited there first, rather than who has a tangentially related academic degree. Or maybe there's a better way. But I suggest that the committee provide some guidance on this matter, otherwise it appears that there will be future disputes over who has to get out of the way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rootology's proposal to ban both editors from NLP topics would address most of this problem. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Black Kite
No further comment, except to say that I, like FT2, have had extensive experience of perma-banned User:HeadleyDown, and that User:Phdarts is definitely another incarnation of said editor. Black Kite 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Sticky Parkin
My only concern is that people bringing a sceptical viewpoint to articles are not all labelled as being socks or meatpuppets of HeadleyDown. Peter Damian's views on NLP etc are not unusual ones, and while he may have interacted with Headley on a messageboard, I'm sure he already had his own opinions on NLP or formed his own when he considered the topic. They are views I share due to my own experience and study (I hope I'm not making myself the next target by saying that.) I would hate to see people wanting to bring WP:NPOV to these articles being driven off by even more claims they are socks, proxies etc. Damian should avoid them perhaps, but only because of the existing tension between him and FT2, not because of his opinions on the subject which are by no means rare, in fact he was very conciliatory when discussing those articles with FT2 in my humble opinion. He made concession for reasons of collegial spirit that there was some evidence for some of these therapies etc, where I would not have done. I hope this makes sense and is slightly relevant.:) Sticky Parkin 12:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Random832
Where exactly do we imagine Thatcher has obtained the authority to unilaterally impose sanctions anyway? Can I simply ban FT2 from the article space with no discussion? These "conditions" are wholly illegitimate and I hope the committee is willing to recognize this. --Random832 (contribs) 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To FT2: The ban said "Arbcom or Jimbo only". - precisely, arbcom or Jimbo only. Not arbcom and Jimbo - when Jimbo "stepped aside", the ban was gone. This "clarification" is an attempt to impose new sanctions, and should properly be a full case. --Random832 (contribs) 14:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A concern from AGK
I find it concerning that it is being proposed that an Arbitrator be placed on a topic ban. That an editor is even contemplating topic banning FT2 is a poor reflection in the Community's confidence in the Committee (although I make no comment as to the merits of that proposal). AGK 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite
This isn't going to stop is it? I was largely supportive originally for the unblock - I felt Peter deserved one last chance, with the good faith understanding that he'd drop the FT2 matter completely. By that I also mean NLP and Headley Down accusations. Yet he's still at it on WR. This is precisely the sort of behaviour that got him banned last time, and now he's continued during his unblock request. I don't understand why the committee are even considering an unblock whilst this sort of behaviour is carrying on. I would certainly suggest that a full case is needed before any unblock, especially when the motion that is currently being supported is effectively an editing restriction being placed on a sitting arbitrator.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tom harrison
"...the motion that is currently being supported is effectively an editing restriction being placed on a sitting arbitrator." That shouldn't make any difference. Like some other recent cases, this isn't going to be settled until it's settled right. I hope the arbs will open a new case, go through all the evidence transparently and openly, and decide impartially. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by wholly uninvolved S. Dean Jameson
Having reviewed this mess -- and it is a mess -- in toto, I can see no reason not to open a full case here. We have a sitting arbitrator who is posting novella-length missives here, having them removed, and then opening pages in userspace for them. You have questions raised as to the legitimacy of this arbitrator's edits and interactions with an editor who has been previously banned for attempting to raise questions during the election of said arbitrator. This is more than a request for clarification, it's a case. It's as simple as that. The actions of all involved parties need close examination, which a clarification request does not adequately allow. SDJ 05:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Recuse - party --Tznkai (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A number of statements have been delisted at the request of Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin (and by Kirill himself, also). I would note that if parties wish to resubmit their statements after they have been condensed to an acceptable length, they may do so in the space their initial statements were located in (rather than at the bottom of the thread). For editors who are unsure whether their statement is acceptable or not, this utility will evaluate the number of words used therein. Headers (of the format "Statement by User X") and end-signatures should not be included in the text you enter in for counting, but everything else ought to be. Thanks, AGK 14:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The request for clarification is noted. This situation should be addressed, but I am not certain what is the best procedural vehicle to do so. Please note that I will have very limited online time this weekend (per comment on my talkpage the other day), so no inference should be drawn from any delay in my posting further here. All persons are requested to observe appropriate decorum in connection with this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that there is ongoing controversy and drama. All statements and relevant information should be submitted (here or via e-mail) within 24 hours so that we can decide whether the committee has a role here, and if so, what it is, as the current confusion should not be allowed to continue. We also need a complete understanding of each party's position as to what action (if any) we or the community should take, if not already provided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have completed my review of this request and offer a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the email exchange with Jimbo, Thatcher, and myself, Peter Damian, and FT2 was that we advised that FT2 and Damian needed to avoid each other. If Damian is unblocked it makes much more sense to have him writing articles then debating a year old conflict with FT2. Damian has told us that FT2 comments push his buttons the wrong way so I think that putting them in contact with each other now will scuttle his comeback before it starts. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, there has been zero substantive discussion about Peter Damian's unblock request by arbcom during the past week. All of the discussion about the matter was between Thatcher, FT2, Damian, and Jimbo, except for a few comments that I added yesterday when I joined the discussion. So the Committee has no background information about the recent situation. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Further discussion about this is needed before I can make up my mind as to what to support here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate, but I think we're going to have to start generally enforcing the word limit; the lengths of some of the statements above are rather excessive. Kirill (prof) 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds of common sense. If we revisit this tangled mess, we need a proper case in due form of an appeal. It makes little sense for NYB to be saying "little time", since rushing at the matter is unlikely to resolve it; we should have a case, the ad hominem arguments should be replaced by evidence, and due account should be taken both of Peter Damian's apparent boundary testing and FT2's possible over-involvement in the matter. So I suggest we ask for an appeal case, and Peter Damian be allowed to edit in giving evidence for it. A case once accepted, an injunction could be voted on that would clarify what enforcement and mutual avoidance should be required pro tem. A straggling discussion here is unlikely to sort this out, in my view. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two months of listen to Damian and FT2 debate the issues in this matter? No thank you! A simple unblock of Damian as Thatcher planned to do would have solved the situation, really. The Community is tired of high profile users engaging in soap operas instead of writing the encyclopedia. If Damian can come back an write article with out harassing FT2 off or on site, then let him do it. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 08:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed several statements which greatly exceeded the 500-word limit. Individuals whose comments have been removed are invited to resubmit them once they have been condensed to a reasonable length. Kirill (prof) 05:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Motions

 * There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.
 * (FT2 is recused but is inactive and thus not counted in the majority anyway.)

1) Any ban, block, or editing restriction currently in force against is terminated, and Peter Damian is permitted to edit Wikipedia subject to the terms of this motion. Peter Damian is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about,  on any page in Wikipedia. If Peter Damian violates this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator. Peter Damian is also strongly urged to refrain from inflammatory rhetoric concerning FT2 on other websites. If Peter Damian wishes to regain access to his original Wikipedia user account, a developer is requested to assist him in recovering his password.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. I do not approve of certain aspects of Peter Damian's conduct but believe that this motion may resolve the concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I will review whether any modification of the motion is warranted by FT2's statement. Peter Damian is requested to comment on this issue, by e-mail if appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, except the last sentence. Thatcher explored the issue and was told by developers that it was not done now and other arrangements were made that seem satisfactory to Peter Damian, I think. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is concern about the last sentence I will strike it; I believe there is precedent for this remedy in the Giano case, but it is not integral to the proposal and I do not want it to divert attention from the main issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember reading that, after the Giano case closed with the request to developers to help Giano recover his password, the developers said it was not possible in practice. Certainly Giano never regained access to his original account. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer 1.1. Kirill (prof) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Informal advice was ignored so need to make it formal. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 07:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1.1. Note that the original account has been usurped, so there is no need to say anything about access to accounts (other than that this is the old block log). --bainer (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In favour of 1.1. James F. (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * There are twelve active arbitrators, so seven votes are a majority.

1.1) The editing restrictions currently in force against are rescinded, and he is permitted to edit Wikipedia.

Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should Peter Damian interact with or make any comment concerning FT2, or make any other comment reasonably regarded as harassment or a personal attack, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.

In addition, Peter Damian and FT2 are strongly urged not to interact with or comment about each other on any other website or public forum.


 * Support:
 * Let's leave no loose ends here. Kirill (prof) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to FT2's request for topic limitations on Peter Damian's editing, this can be addressed should future editing indicate significant ongoing problems. I hope and expect that this should not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 07:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple as that. FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  21:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With recognition that this will be a final chance. --bainer (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though yes, it was a good block. James F. (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The block was fully justified and I have no confidence Peter Damian will abide by any conditions of an unblock. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a good block. Actions have consequences. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But the principal question isn't whether it was or wasn't a good block ab initio; it's what the editor's status today should be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actions have consequences; among other things, they show the character of the actors. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain:


 * Motion adopted. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Tobias Conradi (December 2008)

 * Original discussion

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

Statement by Ncmvocalist
I seek clarification on the recent principle that was passed (via a motion) in this case here - specifically, its application. It appears there is reluctance amongst administrators when it comes to enforcement - specifically with a comment/passage that appears on User:Bedford's user page:

I was a Wikipedian Administrator, but it was stolen from me without due process by a few fellow administrators who thought they should arbitrarily decide what should be and should not be on Wikipedia, despite WP:NOTCENSORED, and got me desysoped. I was once p.o.ed about it, but since then I've realized it is a greater honor to have been screwed of the status than to actually have it, as it just meant I am better than those behind the gangrape. Besides, it means I don't have to do as much as I did before.

No doubt, there are several problems with the ill-considered wording of the comment, as well as the cause for which it is written (if any). The page ended up protected amongst an edit war between User:Bedford and a few other editors. Bedford refused to change the comment when asked to, per the discussion at ANI at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.

I submit that even if it isn't necessarily BLP-related, the rule of thumb is to avoid harm. Unfortunately, there is a reluctance among admin-enforcement through full protection - the admins either seem to downplay the issue, or think greater consensus is needed - even in such a case of requiring more consensus-building, it's not unreasonable to remove a term such as "gangrape" (as an interim measure, even through full protection). I request the Committee to affirm this view and to effect such an enforcement action. Additionally, I request ArbCom to provide clarification on how the relevant principle would apply to the above passage as a whole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In case I miss noting it later, I wish to thank the Committee for taking the time to review this request. I respect and appreciate its views and reasoning so far, as well as anything further that may be forthcoming. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should've disclosed the fact that I'm practically uninvolved in this matter - what goes on between Bedford, Sceptre and anyone else involved is not something I paid attention to. I only looked at the merits of this complaint; particularly, making my own conclusions after seeing the above passage/comment for myself.
 * Re to Horologium

I've handled enough WQA complaints to understand when something is justifiable (and/or misrepresented in the hopes of achieving a certain outcome) - that's not the issue here. Also, this isn't a mere matter of disliking the use of the term; nor is it a matter of wikilawyering via dictionary definitions - the ordinary understanding of the word 'gangrape' or 'gang-rape' isn't something that 'readers' are going to be hopping off to a dictionary for, even in the context in which it is used here. The casual use of the term suggests a low degree of sensitivity, and a high degree of avoidability. I also think it's universally known that disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point is unacceptable. My primary concern at the moment is what appears on the user page - but I won't oppose ArbCom looking at the conduct of all those involved if this is required. Surely, the principles exist for a wider reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with what you've said in regards to Sceptre, or the userbox wars. However, I note that I didn't bring forward this clarification request with any particular attention being given to Sceptre/Mixwell/Bedford conflict - rather, I did bring it here in the hopes of clarifying if it was acceptable on a user page. As another admin noted at the ANI discussion: "While the complainant may have a prejudice towards the user, that does not make the report completely bogus. I see a few other users here who feel this issue has some stance and as such should not just be passed off." The official clarification from here will be useful for future enforcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Horologium
I am the admin who protected Bedford's user page. While I don't agree with a lot of what Bedford has to say, and I dislike his choice of words in the paragraph that was at issue, the argument presented was ludicrous on its face. A user who has baited Bedford before comes sniveling to AN/I over a single word, clearly used in a metaphorical sense, on Bedfords's user page. (It is in the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph of a big chunk of text, not highlighted/capitalized/italicized/bolded.) Then another user, who was at the forefront of the effort to desysop Bedford, starts removing the entire paragraph from Bedford's page. After I warn him about edit-warring and 3RR, he stops, and the first user starts doing the exact same thing, at which point I fully protected the page. Note the edit summaries left by the editors seeking to remove the entire paragraph. one of Sceptre's is incivil; the first of Mixwell's is incorrect, and the second is snarky. I would encourage Bedford to change the word, but the arguments that have been presented so far in the AN/I discussion have ranged from the fatuous and sanctimonious to the inane. Sceptre's WP:IDONTHEARYOU attitude, in particular, is annoying. There is no assertion of rape, and therefore there is no personal attack. Bedford has not called anyone a rapist. I suggest Sceptre should consult a dictionary; My copy of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth edition) offers this definition for rape: 3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation. In that context, the word is justifiable.  Horologium  (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Re to Ncmvocalist

The reason I provided the dicdef was not to wikilawyer; in fact, it was quite the opposite. Sceptre has been spinning this as "Bedford called me a rapist", when in fact he didn't say any such thing. I think it's perfectly obvious in context that he's not using the word in the literal (sexual) sense. (Sceptre is being quite disingenuous here, as Bedford's page specifically cites a few fellow administrators; Sceptre isn't one, and wasn't when the Bedford desysop occurred.) I'm not fond of the use of the word, but it's not a personal attack, and it's definitely not a WP:BLP vio, which was the justification Sceptre was using when editing Bedford's page to remove the entire paragraph, not just the offending word. The disruption is caused not by Bedford, but by Mixwell (who brought the complaint in the first place) and Sceptre (who started edit warring over it without a clear consensus). And no, there is not a clear consensus to remove, although there appears to be a consensus that it's tactless. However, "tactless" is not a criterion for removing anything from a user's page without his or her consent. We already had that argument; you may or may not remember the "Userbox wars", which nearly pulled Wikipedia's community apart. We don't need a rehash of it, over a single word on a userpage which may or may not be divisive.  Horologium  (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you are looking at a general clarification, but the problem is that you are asking about a case which really doesn't have anything to do with the dispute which precipitated the request. (I realize that you don't have access to the deleted pages relevant to the case, so bear with me here.) In the Conradi case, the dispute arose over Conradi restoring pages that had been deleted through MFD, pages which were headlined about examples of "Administrator Abuse" and contained a laundry list of specific diffs that Conradi saw as abusive. The Bedford case deals with a single paragraph, with no links or names, that states that he feels like he got the pointy end of the shaft. One of the words he uses is an unfortunate choice (IMO), but there's nothing there that justifies its removal, under any of the policies that are in place, and certainly not under the remedy you have cited. If this had been congruent, I would have had no compunctions about removing it, but it's not; my reluctance is based on that difference, not an unwillingness to act.  Horologium  (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
If the committee wish it to be treated like a policy or guideline, they should, as respected members of the community, add such guidelines to WP:USER. A clarification on a year-old case is probably the worst place to put something that is expected to be enforced - if nothing else, people need to know the thing exists in the first place. I would encourage them, once again, to do so. Linking to policies or guidelines as why someone should change his user page would be much more effective than an obscure, year-old case in a system that many have probably never heard of.

But, beyond that, I think this is a poor case for the Arbcom to start with: a simple review of a few user pages would find much more egregious content, that better fits within the principles the committee espoused in that clarification. While the committee must not hold a vague statement of principles - which is what the version voted on explicitly is - as equal to policy, WP:USER contains principles that are similar, if less explicitl stated. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am not certain whether ArbCom intervention is necessary here, but Bedford's insistence on using crass language that he knows offends some of his fellow Wikipedians is churlish and reinforces why he is no longer an administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My analysis is that the statement in context would definitely be read as Bedford's own opinion put into a crassly extreme form, but that no-one would seriously read it as a literal statement. It is borderline but I would incline to the view that we cannot insist on its removal. This is partly because, in applying the complained-of remarks generally without naming the users, it is difficult to read it as personally insulting. Users unfamiliar with the dispute, intrigued by the use of such a forceful description, are far more likely to hold it against Bedford especially if they investigate the circumstances. I think in his best interests he should rephrase his remarks, but I strongly suspect that it is his own reputation that will suffer if he choses not to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Our newbie arb hats aren't fully on but we're being asked to comment...I agree with Brad and Sam. While Bedford's comment is highly distasteful to many in the community, it is not directed at anyone specific and is in his own user space. If it were a directed comment, I support removing it. As it is, it's primary negative affect is to the person that wrote it. — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Sam hit the nail on the head here. It's not a good statement to put in his userspace, and it hurts him to keep it in, but it's not to be a statement that needs a sanctioned removal. Wizardman  17:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bedford is reminded that such extreme hyperbole reflects mostly on his own character, and that he would be well-advised to redact it himself. However, I see no reason to forcibly remove the comment or to sanction Bedford for choosing to leave it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A few things need to be examined: Is this a serious violation of WP:NOT? Is this is a serious violation of the user page policy? If so, what enforcement measures are necessary and appropriate? These are questions for the community to resolve. Though there is some current disagreement about this particular case, we are a long way from the community exhausting its options to reach a consensus on this and related matters. Vassyana (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed with Bedford either, but this is not a case for ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to rename: Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2 (January 2009)

 * Original discussion

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * None.

Statement by Geoff Plourde
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee;

I am filing this request after consultation with others. I believe that the current title of this case is not accurate due to the immense number of sanctions in this case, on users other than Piotrus. I am proposing therefore that it be renamed Eastern european disputes.

Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Rlevse : A motion was filed here, but Arbitrators did not act on it despite support from several members of the community. Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Clerk note: This remark moved from the Arbitrators' section. AGK 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Kirill : The substantive benefit is that the name does not accurately reflect the scope of this case, even at acceptance. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Newyorkbrad : Due to the Arbcom practice of reviewing the conduct of all involved, the scope of this case at acceptance automatically became Eastern European disputes. The scope has been and always was this, therefore the name should reflect it.


 * Response to Flonight : I agree that in the current Arbcom practice, cases should not be named after one person. If a case involves the conduct of one person, then such is appropriate, but in the current methodology of reviewing conduct of all involved, this is impractical. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Sam : The fact of Piotrus filing the original motion would lead one to the assumption that he wanted this renamed? Geoff Plourde (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Deacon : I must respectfully disagree. While you may believe that you filed on Piotrus, this isn't just about Piotrus. When arbitrators accepted this case, they specifically said "accept to look at all parties". By doing so, the scope automatically became anyone involved in Eastern European disputes. Even if this were not the case, the sheer amount of named parties would support a rename, at least to Piotrus and 20 others. Due to the scope, a rename is in order. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to Motion 2 : Can this be adjusted to "may be rejected, at the Committee's discretion" to reflect new information and special cases? Geoff Plourde (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
I concur with this. The involved 19 parties (or so), a substantial number of whom remedies were passed on; I don't think the current name is an appropriate title—nor one which accurately reflects the scope of the case.

Inaccurate naming gives a poor impression to editors reviewing the decision; remedying this would be a step in the direction of ensuring all decisions are easy to understand—a direction which, when proposed in the recent ArbCom RfC, the Community quite eagerly assented to.

I'm hoping the Committee can agree to retitle the case.

AGK 01:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova
Good proposal. Durova Charge! 01:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And to the arbitrators: this is too absurd to pass without a blog post. Durova Charge! 02:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Deacon of Pndapetzim
The case as launched was about Piotrus, renaming it distorts this and would be historically inaccurate. I didn't launch a case for all or general north-eastern european disputes (Poland, Germany, Russia & the Baltic are the countries/areas involved, not eastern europe in general), but against Piotrus, following on from Piotrus 1. Historically, the case launched was called Piotrus 2, and it is now over and that can't be changed. The arbs accepted the case and then proceeded to deal with anything subsequently raised in the evidence section, which made the case about North-Eastern Europe in general. So this would suggest splitting the case into something launched by me [and rejected?] and something dealt with by the arbs. Renaming it entirely would bury this historic fact. Moreover, Piotrus 2 follows neatly from Piotrus [1]. If it is to be renamed, make it North-Eastern Europe 2 or North-Eastern Europe 3 (with Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla as North-Eastern Europe 1 and Piotrus 1 as North-Eastern Europe 2). Additionally, there are other Eastern and North-Eastern Europe arbitration cases which evolved [through evidence sections] from one editor to include that one editor's main allies and enemies. There are of course even more in wikipedia generally. The principle has thus not been established yet. I oppose renaming for historical reasons, but oppose general renaming less. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by M.K.
I have been involved in this case primary due to continues problems surrounding user:Piotrus' behavior, not because the general Eastern European topics, as current proposal would imply. Renaming will make make unnecessary confusion - completely distort my motives why I participated in it, the whole evidence section will be out of context etc.

Personally I still fail to see any solid reasons why closed case should be renamed as such; we saw such attempts to rename first Piotrus arbitration case, (which was not implemented), there was attempts during and the second Piotrus case as well. M.K. (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. Now people are redrawing their statements, soon this case will be complete mess.

Idle comment by Orderinchaos
Given it affected many parties and Piotrus was not even the main sanctioned party (two users were banned and three restricted and two mentored, whilst Piotrus was only "urged, cautioned and admonished"), I think this is a no-brainer especially given it seems Piotrus himself had requested such a rename during the case. Orderinchaos 10:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * I've moved 1 comment by Geoff to his own section. If you'd like to respond to a comment by another editor in the thread or by an Arbitrator, you can do so in your own section; by doing so we avoid unnecessary threaded discussion in-Request. Thanks, AGK 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally (as far as I know), case name is set when the case is opened (because there are numerous links and notifications). And there are various precedents where parties not indicated in case name have been sanctioned. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 03:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed a case name at close once to more accurately indicate what findings and remedies were made (Kuban kazak - Hillock65 became Kuban kazak). Its not a bad practice.--Tznkai (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Motion is passed, will enforce right away. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Question--did anyone ask this before the case closed, by any method?<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We have not, traditionally, renamed cases merely because the final decision dealt with users whose names did not feature in the original title; the only occasions I can recall where we undertook this sort of change involved removing names, not adding them. I'm not convinced that the idea of matching the title with the scope, in and of itself, is worth the confusion that radically renaming the case will cause; is there some substantive benefit to doing so? Kirill 03:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It frequently happens that the final scope of a case winds up being different from what was anticipated, and we don't usually rename the case for this reason (except sometimes by dropping the name of a party who winds up not really being mentioned in the final decision at all). That being said, I might be willing to consider taking action here if Piotrus feels strongly about it; otherwise, there's really no reason to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm open to renaming this case. My preference is to never name a case after an user since it often causes them distress. In situation such as this one, I think that naming the case after a single user in not for the best since it over emphasizes his importance in the situation. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with renaming this recently closed case (to reflect final remedies). However, I'd recommend such requests be made within a week of the closure; otherwise we'll end up renaming cases closed years ago. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late but a rename would not be inappropriate if, as Brad says, Piotrus feels it is important. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not persuaded that a rename really serves any purpose here. If Piotrus had been shown to be behaving completely within policy at all times, I would agree there was justification to change the name, but he was indeed the subject of two remedies (a caution with respect to administrative privileges and an admonishment with respect to edit-warring). I find it unfortunate that this case was permitted to range as widely as it did, but it was the decision of the committee at the time and I will respect that. Indeed, if not for the issues identified with respect to Piotrus, there would not have been any findings on any of the other editors. Risker (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The case amounted to a post-amnesty review of user conduct that had not been addressed under the existing discretionary sanctions. "Eastern European disputes" would be a reasonable title, though somewhat misleading as the case was not about articles at all (what with the sanctions mentioned already existing) but entirely about conduct. --bainer (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Motions

 * There are 17 active arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority. 08:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

1) The case Piotrus 2 is to be renamed Eastern European Disputes and all subpages moved accordingly. Redirects will be left at the former name to prevent breaking internal links.


 * Support:
 * &mdash; Coren (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I support renaming a case, (and courtesy blanking, deleting personal information, inviting sensitive evidence to be submitted privately, and other means to help users feel less violated by the process.) This matches well our goal of dispute resolution since people that feel violated by the process have a more difficult time accepting the ruling and moving on. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support and agree with FloNight. FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support and agree with FloNight. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, though pedantically "disputes" should be a lowercase 'd'. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * --Vassyana (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Wizardman  17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Don't name a case after a handful of specific editors if it's a more general case and not specifically about those editors per se.
 * Support. Calling it "Piotrus 2" seems to me to unnecessarily personalise it. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I don't see much value in the name change, but will not stand in the way. Risker (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

2) Any post-closure request for a case renaming should be submitted within 7 days (168 hours) of its closure. If this time limit is exceeded, the request will be rejected. Old cases closed before January 1st, 2009 are exempt from this motion.


 * Support:
 * FayssalF -  Wiki me up®  19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I don't think that's necessary or useful; and I can see cases where either new information comes to light or the situation has changed sufficiently that it would be reasonable to entertain a request for renaming a case much later after the fact. I think that the Committee should remain able to examine such requests on a case by case basis, regardless of how much time has elapsed.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to state a general policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing should be locked in stone. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Though there should be a way to discourage frivolous renamings. More to the point here is that more attention should be paid to the name of a case before it opens, or while it is in progress. In this case, there was a proposal by Piotrus to rename the case. See here. If in-case renaming is too disruptive or prejudicial or pre-judgmental, or the degree to which the final scope may require renaming is unclear, then any renaming issues should be deferred to the end of a case and actively dealt with then. Carcharoth (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per comments above, although in general I agree that it becomes less likely such a request would be granted after too much time passes. Indeed, ideally, these issues are raised (if at all) before the closing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't set something like this in stone. Wizardman  17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur that this has to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Risker (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary to set a formal limit. FT2 (Talk 03:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Risker. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

Not user friendly for many people that will not know of the policy. If they file late it does not diminish the need. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Flo.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with FloNight; there's little value in having a rule just for the sake of having a rule. Risker (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes (January 2009)

 * Original discussion

Statement by Barberio
I ask for review of this case, in particular the Special enforcement on biographies of living persons remedy on the following grounds,


 * The process created by this has,
 * Generally been neglected in use by the majority of administrators, and has only seen formal use twice. One logged incident could have been enacted under existing speedy deletion rules, and the other case resulted in escalation to Arbitration to be resolved.
 * Appears to have been used by a minority as grounds to threaten use of the process in warnings that were not logged on Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log
 * Uses the term "Any and all means", which may be read to mean they may ignore all other standards, policy and expectations of administrator behaviour.
 * Despite several concerns being raised about the wording of the process/policy, change of it was directly barred on the grounds that it would require appeal to the arbitration committee as they held full ownership over it as a remedy.
 * The Arbitration Policy at the time of the case did not allow for such process/policy creating remedies. And the Arbitration Committee made no attempt to alter the policy to grant these extended powers.
 * An RFC on Arbitration Conduct had overwhelming opposition to allowing such process/policy creating remedies. Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee

I would like an answer to the following questions,
 * 1) In light of the lack of correct use of the process, and it's apparent misuse in incorrect threatening warnings, should this process/policy be marked as "historical" or "failed policy" or allowed to continue?
 * 2) What was the intent of the phrase "any and all means" used, and on reflection was this wording appropriate?
 * 3) Did the Arbitration Policy allow for such process/policy creating remedies?
 * 4) Should the Arbitration Policy allow for such process/policy creating remedies?
 * 5) Can such processes/policy if created be fully owned by the Arbitration Committee with no ability for community review as with other processes/policy?
 * 6) What lessons if any should be taken in future arbitration committee conduct from this?

Note: I would appreciate independent answers from all active members of the committee, considering the importance of this issue. --Barberio (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it would be appropriate to allow the process/policy to stand if the issue has been 'punted' into the distance and review postponed until some unknown later date. If you can, please provide a specifict date that this 'review' will be conducted.

Otherwise, consider this an request to conduct this review immediately, or I will open an RfC on the topic and the community may conduct one. --Barberio (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A response to Statement by Daniel.

The results of the Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee called for some pretty clear changes to the Arbitration Policy. I proposed that we put some of them to ratification at the arbitration vote.

However, I was promised that this was not needed because the committee had taken the call for change on advisement, and Arbitration policy proposed updating would be enacted. So I withdrew on the understanding that the Arbitration policy would eventually be changed.

No movement had been made on that since October.

Yes, I am feeling rather "ticked off" at the Arbitration Committee for failing to follow through on promises of reform. And I am reluctant to accept promise now that they will look into it later.

I am prepared to state this... If this review does not happen in a timely manner then the issue should rightfully be removed from their hands. --Barberio (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ps. I admire the irony of being told off for demanding immediate action, as well as being told of for trying to get problems with Arbitration addressed for A YEAR. --Barberio (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Kirill. Yes, I am calling for amendment of the remedy. The questions asked are directed at identifying issues with the remedy and it's results, and how that would effect any amendment of that remedy. While the question of if the remedy as written was acceptable under the arbitration policy at the time is 'constitutional', I do feel it is an issue which needs to be addressed when amending it.

However, I am willing to drop issues of 'constitutional' scope, if I can have a binding promise of a date at which the ArbCom are willing to report to the community on reform. Unfortunately, the committee has a poor past record of responding timely to issues, and I can not help but feel that enough time was already given to respond during and after the RfC. So a deadline by which the committee will provide a report on how it will reform would be a great help to prevent distrust that the process will not occur at all --Barberio (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the votes, the Arbitration Committee is reluctant to give any indication that while they accept they should review this, they will not do so now, nor will they give any specified time at which they will do so, nor any fixed deadline by which they will provide a report. And it's odd that 'the new membership has only just arrive' is used as an excuse considering promises by candidates 'to hit the ground running', and that candidates could not be ignorant of these issues considering the public RfC.

So here's a direction...

Provide a report by April 3rd 2009 on the review of the issues involved. If I don't get anything back by then, I will restart the process to change the arbitration policy by notifying the foundation that we'll be having a ratification vote on the changes to the arbitration policy that were recommended during the RfC.

Yes. This is an ultimatum. I don't mean to prod you with sticks, this isn't a crusade, but it is direction that you can't keep saying you will 'investigate reform' without providing any. If you really can't provide some kind of report on reform in three months, then this issue is probably going to have to bypass you. --Barberio (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Jayvdb. The 'overwhelming opposition to creation of new policy/process' came from Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee. So there already was traction on overruling the arbcom's decision to create new policy/process.

However, administrators who support the use of the new policy/process have reverted any attempt to deprecate the policy, on the grounds that it is owned by the Arbitration Committee and can not be changed by the community.

Can I take this group shrugging of shoulders as sign that you don't own it, and the community can do what it wants with the page, or is Arbitration Committee ownership still claimed? --Barberio (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to stress again one of the reasons that this needs urgent review.

The new policy/process appears to have been used by a minority as grounds to threaten use of the process in warnings that were not logged on Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log. This appears to be being taken under the "Any and all means" clause, but without being logged there is not ability to ensure that it is being used appropriately, and not simply as a means to stifle otherwise appropriate discussion or content.

Since the Arbitration Committee have claimed full ownership of this process/policy, enough administrators are willing to block any community effort to alter the process/policy. This means that the community can not alter the process/policy, and it seems that the only changes that will be accepted are ones directly from the Arbitration Committee.

You broke it. So either you fix it, or allow the community to fix it. --Barberio (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another reply on this...

The community can not alter the policies involved, because Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement has turned it into an "Arbitration owned" policy.

Even if the community could, what policy would be acceptable by the arbitration committee? How do we know what the requirements are going to be for you to decide to lift Special Enforcement? Can we then go back and change the BLP policy later, or is it going to be carved in stone again?

Frankly, and to risk being incivil, you guys haven't thought any of this through have you? You've not sat down and worked out the implications of this mess. You're now refusing to do so, or at least refusing to say when you will do so, despite it being a major issue, and one that decided a lot of people's votes in the election. And you're refusing to allow the community to fix it, by still claiming ownership of the process/policy.

Why are you acting in a way that damages this wiki?--Barberio (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel
I don't think threatening the Committee with an RfC if they don't do exactly what you want, right now, is either appropriate or an intelligent move. The community cannot overrule this motion, except by overruling each individual application of it, so a community RfC is pointless unless, of course, you simply intend to continue your crusade against the Committee which I have observed over the last year. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion
WMF and the community have both agreed BLP is crucially important and has very high standing as policy; both agree admins enforce policy. In a more and more pressing and difficult situation, Wikipedia Arbitration may lean towards the draconian to solve a communal problem. The concern was about resolving the perennial disputes over BLP enforcement, and the undermining of BLP. The decision was admins should apply the tools they have very hard indeed if needed to procure BLP compliance. Giving this a name ("special enforcement") does not change that this was an extreme version of ArbCom's usual role:- ie, that given a conflict, Arbcom's role is deciding the best way existing consensus-accepted policies apply and are interpreted in the situation, to good effect and for best benefit of the project. Admins have a wide scope of tool usage discretion within communal norms. Tool usage can range from "very gentle" to "very firm". In this case the answer was "Policy and norms are served best by using admin access very firmly indeed in the case of BLP disruption, and by setting enforcement measures to ensure they are able to use their tools to enforce policy fully". This was clearly felt by the Arbitrators to be situated well within existing policies (although clearly a draconian use for an exceptional problem), and I agree on that point, regardless of whether I personally do or don't support the actual decision.</li><li>It is normal when saying something may be done a given way, or enforced (eg any sanction) for Arbcom to also spell out exactly how that should work - who may act, what guidance they have on acting, how enforcement should work, and so on. This formed the bulk of that ruling. Apart from the draconian nature of the matter being enforced, it's quite a usual type of content for a decision.</li><li>Arbitration looks forward. It's clear there may be merit in revisiting this, but to pull the current view to pieces is not going to happen here. It's something one might do in reviewing the entire area of enforcement, which is a more rounded issue, and is likely to be looked at anyway, as FloNight and Kirill said.</li></ol>FT2 (Talk 03:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Request noted. I think an open review is needed here, though my views are that this is all to do with WP:ADMIN and arbitration and administrative enforcement, and not really to do with the BLP policy. So from my point of view, the question is whether to review this 'special enforcement' by itself, or together with reviews of other enforcement areas (such as arbitration enforcement). I also note Barberio's six questions, but am deferring specific answers until an actual review process takes place. Carcharoth (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline Will be included as part of Arbitration Enforcement review remedy, so I see no need for a special review of this particular enforcement remedy now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is being asked here? The title is "Request to amend" (emphasis mine), the first sentence asks for review, and the rest is a series of questions; Barberio, are you requesting a change to the ruling (and, if so, what is that change) or a general discussion about the constitutional role of the Committee?  The former may be a matter of some urgency (although, if the ruling isn't even being used, I'm not sure why that would be); the latter is not, and a request for clarification is not a good venue for it in any case.  If you're just looking for reform, we're working on it; poking us with pointy sticks, while no doubt entertaining, will unfortunately not make it move along any faster. ;-) Kirill 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline per FloNight. I will point out that over half of the current committee has taken office just over 24 hours ago. While this is definitely something that will be addressed, we have not had sufficient time (or attendance) to establish an agenda and timeline, and both must be somewhat fluid to allow for activity on this page. Risker (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline but with careful reasons:<ol><li>I was the single strongest opposer to the BLPSE decision, Barerio. I described it as a extremely worrying misjudgement since in my view it would not resolve the problem but escalate it. Even so, for me, it is within the remit of the committee:
 * Decline This is already high on the agenda for review in due course. The current arbitrators are reform-minded but most of us have only been in the job twenty-four hours and Rome, as they say, wasn't built in a day. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline. I personally think BLPSE was overreaching, endorse it being deprecated, but the committee has got buckley's chance of devising an improvement to this complex problem as a quick motion.  Also, I dont see an overwhelming community consensus at Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee, so if you want traction on this ... please do initiate Requests_for_comment/BLPSE. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No New Policy (which I strongly agree with) was not a community endorsed view that the committee should overturn all previous remedies that were overreaching. I just told you how the community can fix it: the community needs to develop a NGBLPSE so that the committee remedy can be deprecated. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)