Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Contact with arbitrator
I've directly contacted one of the Arbitrators today, for the first time. Seems like it might be a good idea to make a note of it here at the talk page.Ferrylodge 09:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The proposed "Ferrylodge and Bishonen" remedy
I take issue with being (propositionally) "instructed" to "refrain from interacting with or commenting about" Ferrylodge. Since Kirill Lokshin proposes a remedy against me, reinforced with a threat of "formal restriction" in case I'm recalcitrant, I urge him to clarify what it is about my recorded actions that needs remedying. Shouldn't such a remedy normally be based on a Finding of Fact that I've interacted with and/or commented inappropriately on Ferrylodge? Or alternatively point out that such a finding is not implied, as was done rather carefully in the Justanother remedy in the COFS case. ? In my own opinion, I've been assiduously "refraining" all along, and could safely have been left to my own devices in continuing to do so. To the best of my recollection, my interaction with/mention of Ferrylodge since the RfC he brought against me in early June 2007 has consisted of (23 August) this post on ANI in support of Ferrylodge against an editor who was plaguing him on his page; a brief and civil post (September 21) in the CSN ban discussion; and another (October 18) on the evidence page of this RFAR. Three polite posts in five months, one of them a direct attempt to help him out in a conflict with a third party. Admittedly I may have forgotten something, but I don't think so. I've been going out of my way to avoid Ferrylodge, and to be fair to him. This in notable contrast with the way Ferrylodge has been nagging about me, before the RFC and ever since, as several people have noted. I make no virtue of the contrast, since I expect to set an example as an admin. But I don't expect the Committee to address me as part of the problem, either. Symmetrical remedies for unsymmetrical behavior are logically incoherent and morally unacceptable. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Noted, done, and so forth. The intent is to minimize contact between the two of you; the remedies must therefore necessarily be symmetrical in effect, if not in wording. Kirill 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't accept that necessity. I have shown that I can and will minimize it without needing to be "instructed", let alone threatened with restrictions (in case I'm after five months seized with a sudden whim to pursue and prod Ferrylodge?) I resent being treated with such distrust. Bishonen | talk 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Let me try to make this a bit clearer, then: if the community should choose to hold another discussion, in whatever forum, regarding a ban on Ferrylodge, I expect you to avoid participating in that discussion. I do not want to be dealing with this particular matter again after Ferrylodge complains that he was unable to defend himself due to a prohibition on interacting with you.
 * The remedy, as written, is an admittedly imperfect way of ensuring that this is accomplished. If you have a better way of doing so, please feel free to propose it; but it is my intention that this point be somehow made explicit in the decision. Kirill 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The proposed remedy is supposed to demonstrate some sort of "even-handedness" but what it really shows is inability to tell right from wrong that we have seen in other decisions as well. The problem with this attitude is the major substitution of the main principle of any justice system, be it in RL or onwiki. It is extremely dangerous to have everyone treated equally rather than fairly. Lack of resource and desire to investigate issues brings such "even-handed" remedies not for the first time. --Irpen 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Mmm, "even-handedness" is hardly the issue in this case; as I've noted just above, I have a rather specific reason for believing that this particular remedy (or some form thereof) is needed here. Kirill 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't understand your invitation to me to propose "a better way of doing it." I already did, in my first post above: the careful wording of the Justanother remedy in the COFS case. That would avoid "instructions", threats, and the implication that I need such things to keep me in order. Here is the link again: . Bishonen | talk 23:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Which would be fine if the Ferrylodge remedy were merely a prohibition on harassment, which it is not. As I said above, my intent is to ensure that the instructions given to Ferrylodge do not have the net effect of forcing him to avoid discussions regarding his own behavior.  Do you believe that the COFS remedy would be sufficient to accomplish this?  In other words, are you willing to avoid such discussions entirely without a formal remedy to that effect? Kirill 00:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that particular remedy twice and you nevertheless think you need to ask me such a thing? I'm beginning to feel like ceremoniously handing you my adminship bit, Kirill. Just say the word. While I quite like User:Justanother, I'm mystified to see the Committee was prepared to trust him, without extracting any previous assurances, but will not assume even a smidgeon of good faith from me. "Would it really be enough to urge you, Bishonen? Are you sure you don't need threatening?" Sheesh. I'm not answering that. Do just as you like. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
 * I apologize if I've come across as questioning your good faith; that certainly wasn't my intent. I'm merely trying to make sure that differing interpretations of what exactly is being arranged here don't come back to cause major problems down the road. Kirill 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about simply adding "(except in a discussion initiated by others concerning Ferrylodge's own editing behavior, if Bishonen and/or KillerChihuahua participate in such discussion)" to the end of the Ferrylodge remedy? I think this would satisfy Kirill's stated concern while eliminating the need for remedies directed toward Bishonen and KC. Newyorkbrad 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works better than what I'd proposed here. Thank you. Kirill 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if I'm editing an article about, say, balloons, and KillerChihuahua or Bishonen shows up, then I am obligated to leave?Ferrylodge 01:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, yes. But, given your editing interests, I think that there's very little probability of that happening by chance; and, of course, deliberate attempts to force you off certain articles this way would be a matter to be brought to Committee's attention. Kirill 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope that some language can be worked out to Bishonen's satisfaction. Meanwhile, I would like to mention that I share Irpen's concern about a "lack of resource and desire to investigate issues."  If Arbcom does not really wade into the actual evidence, and figure out the rights and wrongs, then that sets a poor example for treatment of evidence in other forums, e.g. at the ANI.  The fact that there is so much evidence to wade through in this arbitration is largely ArbCom's own doing, because not only have the word-limits on the evidence been waived, but also the people alleging wrongdoing have not been asked to identify the one or two most egregious examples that ArbCom could focus on.Ferrylodge 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions for arbitrators
Again, I strongly object to the proceedings here, in which evidence presented against me is cited by arbitrators, without any explanation why the counter-evidence I presented is unpersuasive. For example, the evidence presented by KillerChihuahua is cited in the findings, without any arbitrator addressing any of the counter-evidence that I presented in response to KillerChihuahua's evidence. There is no hint that that evidence I presented has been considered.

Does the Arbitration Committee really want to suggest that it was disruptive for me to ask KillerChihuahua to stop posting at my talk page (as she asserts in the evidence she presented), even after she used words like "bullshit" and "pathetic" and "congenitally dense" and "inane" in her communication with me? And now ArbCom wants me to vanish from every article where KillerChihuahua chooses to appear? Why? So she will not have the opportunity to swear and curse at me?Ferrylodge 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A few general comments
As of now, three arbitrators have voted to ban me from a broad range of articles that I have edited related to reproduction, and to require me to leave any other article or talk page (even my own talk page) whenever KillerChihuahua or Bishonen chooses to appear. I would like to briefly summarize my view about this arbitration proceeding so far, before it is closed and archived. No one at this arbitration appears to have actually compared and/or weighed the conflicting evidence about my edits at the reproduction articles. They may have done so silently, but there is no discussion to indicate that such weighing and comparing has occurred. The appearance of a fair process is created by allowing everyone to present evidence, but then arbitrators make a decision without explanation.

I believe that an unspoken goal of some of the participants in these proceedings has been to prevent "disuption" of their POV edits to the reproduction articles. Such edits have been going on for a very long time, and I have tried to correct them (e.g. see here). There are dozens of other similar examples. I admit to disrupting POV edits to the reproduction articles, and I am proud of having done so.

Wikipedia's arbitration system needs fixing, IMHO. Although I do not expect any of the following suggestions to be seriously considered, they ought to be: 1. The banning administrator should identify particular evidence that he or she believes is most compelling regarding disputed behavior, so that everyone can focus on that evidence first, instead of no one really focussing on any evidence. The quality of evidence is much more important than the quantity. 2. At least one of the arbitrators should at least give an explanation why that particular evidence identified by the banning administrator is believed more credible than the evidence presented to counter it. 3. More generally, I think it would be very helpful if Wikipedia would offer a dispute resolution process before arbitration, in which several editors are selected at random to resolve a dispute, and are required to participate. The people who edit a particular article do not form a good cross-section of Wikipedia, nor do the people who keep track of the ANI and RFCs.Ferrylodge 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say that the admin's noticeboard is a decent cross section of Wikipedia (there are admins of all kinds). But as to the rest of your comments, I am unsure. There is evidence that you have been disruptive. And the arbitators think (at least it looks like it heading that way at this point) that a topic ban is going to best help the encyclopedia. However, I would agree that they may be ignoring evidence of vast positive edits within the pregnency/abortion topic (as provided on the evidence page). They currently have three votes that say you have made positive contributions on unrelated topics, but fail to recognize that you have made plenty of very constructive and neutral edits within the pregnancy sphere. But all-in-all, I would just say that you should be glad they are not voting to uphold the ban, and that you should just keep on editing positively and not feel so slighted by people who take jabs at you. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing, and should be embraced by all. So just keep your head up, your nose clean, and within a reasonable time I'm sure all parties will forget about this whole mess. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 17:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ali'i, I appreciate your comment, but you seem to be doing exactly what I object to the most. You say, "There is evidence that you have been disruptive."  Would you please identify a specific example so we can discuss it?Ferrylodge 17:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that you really want me to do that, it won't help your case. I'll just say that edit warring, even if you are correct is disruptive. --Ali&#39;i 17:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely do want you to give an example from the evidence presented at the evidence page, of my alleged disruption at the reproduction articles. Then we can match it up with the counter-evidence I presented.  I really don't see any way to further damage my case regarding the reproduction articles, given that I am about to be banned from them.  I agree with you that violating 3RR is wrong, and I have apologized for the two times I have been blocked for 3RR.  I don't think that those two instances of 3RR blocks in the course of three years justify a topic ban, especially given that I've apologized for both of them (and considering that they were both in response to violations by others of Wikipedia policies including 3RR and civility).  Are the two 3RR blocks the example you have in mind?  It's not disputed that I was guilty of violating 3RR on those two occasions, and it's not disputed that it was wrong.Ferrylodge 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this ignores the 7 reverts in one day on Fred Thompson which might have earned a third block, and are an example of tendentious editing on a non-pregnancy/reproduction article. Tvoz | talk 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ferrylodge has done more to help the Fred Thompson article than basically anyone. But, yes, the revert warring is an example. Although at the time, Ferrylodge thought he was enforcing the biographies of living persons policy (which is exempt from revert limits)... although his interpretation of that policy may have been skewed, and should have been helped to understand. I'd categorize it more under good-faith misunderstanding rather than actual tendentious editing. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Unfortunately, the 7 reverts in a day are only one example of edit warring that Ferrylodge has participated in on the Fred Thompson article. I'm not going to say he was the sole edit warrior on that article or judge if his negative contributions to the article outweighs his positive contributions, because it certainly takes two to tango and other users have certainly done their share of it (the article is currently edit protected for a reason, after all), but he certainly has been a disruption on the article. It is also unclear if Ferrylodge thought it was a BLP violation at the time he was involved in the revert war. None of his edit summaries or his initial comments on the talk page mention any concerns regarding BLP. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, searching on "BLP" shows he mentioned this policy regarding his name multiple times. Just perhaps not in that section you cite. But Ferrylodge has retired now, apparantly, so hopefully, this arbitration case can come to completion soon, and we can all move on. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 13:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I said his initial comments on the subject which were limited to references to WP:MOSBIO. Ferrylodge didn't incorporate BLP into his arguments until after they were brought up by Y, after the article was edit protected. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Proportionality?
As I returned to my self-assigned job of fighting vandals, I noticed something that brought to mind the total lack of proportionality in the Ferrylodge case.

ln the standard warning against vandalism is the phrase "disruptive edits". For vandals we warn them once, twice, three time, a "last" warning, often another "last" warning, then finally there is a 24-hour block, then if it continues (which it almost always does) a 48-hour block, one week, one month, three months, six months, and maybe eventually an indef block. This is how we treat disruptive editors who (usually) don't have a single constructive edit behind them. Lots and lots and lots of warning, then short blocks, eventually progressing to long blocks.

Contrast this with how Ferrylodge was treated. No warnings at all - certainly nothing as specific as the warnings we give vandals - then immediately into an indef block, which two months later might be downgraded to a topic ban. This is how we treat an editor with thousands of productive edits.

The community is treating a very productive editor much, much worse than totally unproductive vandals.

We ought to treat productive editors at least as well as we treat vandals. The worst he should receive is a "level 3" warning and possibly a 1RR restriction for six months.

And we ought to have in place a structure, like the various vandalism protocols, to handle wayward editors with minimal fuss to avoid long drawn out contentious proceedings leading to ArbCom. There should be multiple warnings, then something like AIV where an independent admin would examine the history of warning and previous blocks (if any), then issue an appropriate block. A system like that would nip problems in the bud before they become big problems, and if it eventually led to a long block, there would be a long record of warnings and multiple blocks to justify a long block.

The likely outcome of a warning to Ferrylodge is that there would be no problem at all. He would continue to be a productive editor and would not revert more than a single time because he would know that he would face a long-term block and have no defense.

The likely outcome of the proposed topic ban is that Ferrylodge will leave Wikipedia and we will lose the benefit of his positive contributions.

For the sake of Wikipedia what sense does it make to treat a productive editor far worse than a vandal? What sense does it make to drive him away from constructive editing? Sbowers3 04:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments reflect the view that vandalism is the biggest problem Wikipedia faces, or that being a vandal is the most damaging thing an editor could be. My experience is otherwise; I find that vandalism is quickly and expeditiously dealt with (thanks to the efforts of editors like yourself). A much bigger impediment to the goal of creating a workable, respected encyclopedia is the tendentious or disruptive editor who is not a vandal. These editors generally consume a huge amount of time and effort, drive good contributors from the project, create an unpleasant atmosphere, and sabotage the encyclopedia's work to a much greater degree than a vandal. I'm not making a judgement on whether Ferrylodge is such an editor - but in the abstract, it does make sense to treat tendentious, disruptive editors differently than blatant vandals, and my experience has been that the former are the bigger problem by far. MastCell Talk 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that vandalism is the biggest problem. But vandals have (for the most part) zero redeeming value; very few eventually produce any constructive edits. FL, on the other hand, had some 5000 constructive edits. Looking forward, most vandals will never produce constructive edits; FL would have produced thousands of good edits. Sbowers3 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your comment also shows a misunderstanding of the reason that vandals are given a series of warnings and blocks that are gradually longer. It is not because we are trying to be fair to a vandal. If fact admins can and do block vandal only accounts without any type of warning. By giving graduated warnings, we make sure that the vandal is still active and causing problems before we block them. If we block every vandal with a long block we would needlessly block others that use the same IP through collateral damage. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to what MastCell said above, the initial edits most vandals make are vandalism edits, so the presumption is that they are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies so a series of warnings are used to make sure they are familiar with the policies before they are blocked. In the case of an experienced editor, they are generally familiar with Wikipedia's policies and know what behaviors are acceptable and which are not, so therefore a number of specific warnings to stop doing something are not necessary. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But many experienced editors are NOT familiar with policies. Oh, they know notability, verifiability, reliable sources, POV, etc. because they experience those policies on a daily basis. But many apparently do not know WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and don't even know 3RR very well. I have seen incivility with nary a warning and personal attacks not warned against. I've seen violations of 3RR excused on the basis of vandalism or BLP when the exceptions simply did not apply. One editor apparently concluded that anything he didn't like was vandalism, so he reverted it. I warned him that the 3RR policy was specific about the definition of vandalism. He continued reverting (nine times) and was eventually blocked.
 * The way to make editors familiar with policy is to start with a series of warnings, then short blocks if needed. If we did that consistently, we would have less incivility, fewer personal attacks, fewer edit wars, less disruption. And if we followed that process, the most disruptive editors would build a history of warnings and blocks that would make the "judicial" process simpler and faster. To put it simply, Wikipedia would be better if we treated wayward experienced editors the same way we treat vandals. Sbowers3 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ferrylodge did get several NPA and CIVIL warnings, two short blocks for his revert warring, and another short block for harassment. It would appear your criteria has been met. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He was never blocked for NPA or CIVIL. If we treated those violations the same as we treat vandalism, then he would have been blocked for continued violations after warning. As for his last 3RR violation, his last edit was at 14:11, he was warned at 14:19. He did not violate after the warning. In any case, if he had been treated the same as a vandal, the short blocks would have been followed by a 1-week block, a 1-month block, etc. lf he had been warned earlier and often, then been blocked shorter then longer, then he most likely would have stopped. And if he had not stopped, the judicial record would have been very clear and the banishment proceedings would have been very quick and uncontroversial. Sbowers3 02:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) My comments are about more than FL. It is undeniable that there are editors violating CIVIL and NPA and they don't get warned. Wikipedia would be more civil if there were more warnings and if necessary short blocks, then longer blocks. Sbowers3 02:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I tend to think wikipedia would be more civil if and only if we block for longer on less incivility.  It seems that very few people respond to warnings, except by escalation.  I agree with Flonight's comments in her votes.  escalating blocks for folks who don't learn from a situation like this is a waste of lots of others good faith.  --Rocksanddirt 22:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Soooooo
So....it's 22 days after this entered voting, after an overly long period of evidence. Durova and Jehochman went into voting in the span of what....2 days? Can we go ahead and start the motions to close with this case? Seriously, it's 3 weeks older than anything else in the voting stage at this point in time. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We're hung up on remedy 2 at the moment. Otherwise, yes, we're ready to close I think. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome (I haven't been following up on it so I didn't know. Thanks.) &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  02:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)